Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENERGY

Opencast Coal Mines

Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the arrangements for licensing opencast coal mines.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): Under existing legislation, the British Coal Corporation is the licensing authority and is therefore responsible for the arrangements for licensing opencast coal production.

Mr. Hain: Is the Minister aware of the environmental blight, pollution, traffic congestion and danger to health caused by opencast mines, which are concentrated overwhelmingly in the Neath and Swansea valleys, and elsewhere in south Wales? If the Minister concentrated them in the south-east and south-west of England, he would be skinned alive by his constituents and his Government would get a bloody nose.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I agree that opencast coal mining must be carried out to the highest planning and environmental standards, but to put an artificial limit on

opencast coal production as the Labour party wishes would be to the detriment of the coal industry generally and would cost many jobs in the industry.

Mr. Ashby: Is my hon. Friend aware that, contrary to the assertion of the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), the preponderance of opencast mining is not in the hon. Gentleman's area but in mine? North-west Leicestershire has been devastated by opencast mining and there is now a proposal for a new opencast mine at the Coalfield West site. That proposal is opposed by the county council, the district council and the overwhelming majority of people in the area. Will my hon. Friend therefore reconsider the proposal and perhaps defer it for 200 years or so, until technology has improved sufficiently for such opencasting to be carried out without detriment to the environment?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I confirm that my hon. Friend has opencast mining in his constituency, and I visited a site there. The appeal decision on the site in question, however, will be made not by my Department but by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mr. Eadie: Are we to take the Minister's reply as having some relationship with the fact that he has asked Rothschild, the merchant bankers, and Touche Ross, the accountants, to advise on the privatisation of the mining industry? Will they be making recommendations about that, and will the Select Committee on Energy be bypassed yet again?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: When we draw up plans to privatise the coal industry, we shall consult all interested parties, including the opencast mining sector.

Electricity Generation

Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the amount of electricity generation likely to be generated from renewable sources by the end of the decade.

Mr. Knapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his current estimate for the amount of electricity generation likely to be generated from renewable sources by the end of the decade.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Colin Moynihan): The Government are working towards a figure of 1000 MW of new renewable electricity generating capacity by the year 2000.

Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend will recognise that nobody expects renewable resources to be the primary contributor to our electricity supplies in the foreseeable future, but does he agree that the Government's record on research into that source bears good comparison with that of previous Governments? Is not it interesting to note that we are spending 12 times as much as the Labour Government spent on research into renewable energy?

Mr. Moynihan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. More than £180 million has been invested in research, development and demonstration, with a budget allocation of more than £24 million—a new record high—for this year.

Mr. Knapman: Can my hon. Friend confirm that it is thanks to the privatisation of the electricity generating industry that renewables are to have their best opportunity ever to compete, and to compete on their own merits?

Mr. Moynihan: I can indeed confirm that. Through electricity privatisation, we established the non-fossil fuel obligation, and under that obligation we are giving renewables their best opportunity ever to enter the electricity generating market.

Dr. Kim Howells: Does the Minister agree that the Government missed a vital chance? As they intended to privatise the electricity industry, would not it have been better to create real competition, rather than the present duopoly which is concentrating only on the cheapest options—which at the moment happen to be combined-cycle gas-burn systems? Does he agree that if we were really serious about developing renewables, we would have done something about ensuring that small generators had a chance as well?

Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Gentleman should be well aware that that is precisely what is achieved under the non-fossil fuel obligation. As a result of that tranche, 75 projects that are both commercially viable and environmentally acceptable have come forward right across the board—not least in landfill gases, hydro power and wind projects. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will back all those projects and recognise that they are very important for the development of renewable energy on a commercial basis.

Mr. Wallace: Does the Minister realise that the non-fossil fuel obligation can do nothing to promote renewable resources in Scotland, where that obligation does not exist? Does he recognise that many of the renewable sources involve very heavy capital starts, with the pay-back taking place over a long period? What steps is he taking to ensure that there is a lengthening of contracts so that those who supply from renewable sources have the opportunity of a pay-back on their initial capital costs?

Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Gentleman has raised two important points. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland rcently announced a scheme under which Scottish Power and Scottish Hydro will contract for the output of renewables projects in Scotland—a scheme which the hon. Gentleman will no doubt warmly welcome. The second point concerned the implications of the 1990 limitation on the levy. I am satisfied that the regional electricity companies have the flexibility that they need to offer generators acceptable contracts under the proposed 1991 renewables order. The reality of that is evident from the considerable number of projects proposed for recognition in the second tranche of that order.

Mr. Dobson: Is the Minister aware that National Power has announced that it is to abandon most of the research and development work that was carried out when the industry was publicly owned and that it intends to sack hundreds of scientific research staff because, in its words, it is not prepared to continue funding research and development for the solution of national problems? If National Power will not do that research, who will?

Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Gentleman should have heard my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice). The Government have given strong support under a substantially enhanced research and development and demonstration budget. If National Power—or any other company—can make proposals within the non-fossil fuel obligation to contract with the regional electricity companies, it will greatly benefit the development of research and development and the commercial viability of many of these important projects.

Gas and Electricity Prices

Mr. Haynes: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the directors general of Ofgas and Offer to discuss the regulation of gas and electricity prices.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Wakeham): I regularly meet the directors general of both Ofgas and Offer and discuss a range of matters of mutual interest.

Mr. Haynes: Is the Secretary of State aware that the chairman of the National Consumer Council in the east midlands has severely criticised the prices being charged by the east midlands electricity authority, suggesting a figure of between 9 and 11 per cent? Consumers in the east midlands are being robbed, so the Secretary of State should get a flea in his ear and go and see those directors. Let us give them some teeth and have something done about the job. Incidentally, is the Secretary of State aware that they spent £28,000 taking business men to the cup final, and that they wined and dined them as well? What about that? It is time that the right hon. Gentleman pulled his socks up.

Mr. Wakeham: I would never accuse the hon. Gentleman of tabling a planted question—

Mr. Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It was my question and not a plant, although I know what goes on on the Conservative Benches.

Mr. Wakeham: I was agreeing with the hon. Gentleman, not disagreeing with him. I said that the hon. Gentleman's question was not a plant, but it enables me, nevertheless, to say that domestic prices have fallen by 2·5 per cent. in real terms in the past seven years, which compares very favourably indeed with the price record of the last Labour Government, under whom there was an increase of 22 per cent. What is more, under the privatised system, domestic consumers are protected by substantial regulations which will enable prices to be kept down to the retail prices index level. That is working very well.

Mr. Michael Morris: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is genuine disquiet in the east midlands, particularly if what has happened this year were to continue for the foreseeable future—over the next two or three years? My constituents are concerned to know whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is confident that the regulatory powers are adequate to meet the ever-changing market conditions.

Mr. Wakeham: Yes, I am very confident that the powers are there. The increase in electricity prices for the domestic consumer will not be higher than the retail prices index over the three-year period. The director general can always come to me if he requires further powers.

Mr. Hardy: The Secretary of State mentioned the domestic consumer. He must be aware that the electricity price increases that heavy industrial users face are a serious deterrent to the maintenance of production and to exports. Does he not realise that those users face serious international competition and that our competitor countries behave with rather more sense than we do in this important matter?

Mr. Wakeham: We certainly do not subsidise electricity prices, which may be what the hon. Gentleman was suggesting, and I would not want to do that. The larger users can now use their commercial strength in a competitive market to negotiate the best prices available. A considerable number of industrial users have already benefited from competition and have been able to secure much lower prices.

Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend remind that moaning grandad on the Opposition Back Bench, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), that before privatisation the monopoly producer was its own regulator?

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is right. Further to what the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) said, whether or not customers went to a cup final with an electricity company—

Mr. Haynes: The company paid for it.

Mr. Wakeham: I was about to make that point. There was no cost to the consumers. Their prices—

Mr. Haynes: The Secretary of State is a grandfather as well.

Mr. Wakeham: Perhaps we can keep the hon. Gentleman's private life out of this.
My point is that the regulations will mean that those expenses will not fall on the consumer.

Mr. Barron: Can the Secretary of State tell us whether it is the Government's plan that, as he rightly said, some

of the larger commercial users are able to shop around and obtain the benefit of a 15 per cent. drop in the price that they paid the year before while domestic consumers have had an increase of 11 per cent?

Mr. Wakeham: Domestic consumers are protected by a system of price regulation. They have a different system because it is not possible to introduce competition for domestic users. They are protected by domestic regulations which do not allow prices to increase more than the retail prices index over a three-year period.

Renewable Energy

Mr. Maclennan: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what further steps he plans to take to promote the development of the technology for renewable energy resources throughout the United Kingdom.

Mr. Moynihan: The Government will be reviewing their policy on renewable energy sources in the second six months of this year. We will also be bringing forward a further renewable order, including reserved bands for a range of technologies later this year, and my Department will continue to support a major research and development programme aimed at developing all those renewable technologies relevant to conditions in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Maclennan: I thank the Minister for that reply. In the review, will he take on board the fact that his earlier announcement about contractual arrangements between private suppliers in Scotland and the Scottish boards does nothing to benefit the generation of development of renewables by the Atomic Energy Authority's technology? Will he particularly consider the possibility of that authority being involved in the development of the programme to which he referred?

Mr. Moynihan: I can confirm that we shall certainly take those points on board and look at them in detail during the review.

Mr. Butler: Can my hon. Friend report on progress with regard to the Mersey barrage scheme, about which some doubts have been expressed recently?

Mr. Moynihan: We are very keen to find a positive way forward on the Mersey barrage scheme. My officials have received a report from the Mersey Barrage Company and are currently considering it in detail. To date, we have spent £2·4 million of the £4·8 million total programme budget for the project, and we hope very much that solutions can be found to the problems and the challenges which lie ahead for the MBC.

Mr. Flynn: Does not the Minister consider that to be a disappointing reply? Will he look for a much more positive and generous investment in tidal power—a range of tidal barrages around our coast? Is it not true that for many years, possibly a century, we have neglected the use of tidal power—which is British, eternal and non-polluting?

Mr. Moynihan: No, I do not believe that my reply was in any way disappointing. I mentioned that we were hoping positively to find an appropriate way forward on the Mersey barrage scheme. On tidal energy research., we have put more than £8 million into development and demonstration. We have supported on a 50:50 basis


feasibility studies on the Mersey barrage, and the Department has funded about £4 million towards studies for a Severn barrage. That is a very positive programme to identify appropriate, commercially viable and environmentally acceptable projects in tidal energy.

Electricity Generation

Mr. Holt: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what estimate he has made of the increase in demand for electricity generation in the next 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My Department does not routinely forecast electricity demand—that is the job of the industry. When specific needs arise, projections are produced as, for example, in the United Kingdom's submission to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was published as an energy paper and is available in the Library of the House.

Mr. Holt: I am grateful, on the one hand, for that answer, but I am not very grateful, on the other hand, because it says nothing. Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the future demand for electricity is an unknown quantity, the Government should consider the supply of electricty generated by North sea gas as it affects the Teesside area? We do not want a proliferation of pylons radiating like a spider's web from that region. There is no reason at all why other parts of the country should not have gas fed directly to them. If power stations are built in those areas, we would not need pylons despoiling the beautiful North Yorkshire countryside, which is under threat at this moment.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Additional overhead lines are sometimes necessary to connect new power stations or to strengthen the grid system, but applications to build such lines must be accommpanied by environmental statements to ensure that the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend are fully considered before permission is given.

Mr. Benn: Can the Minister explain how it is that he disclaims responsibility for forecasting when the statute that set up his Department requires him and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to safeguard the energy supplies of the United Kingdom? By saying that forecasting is the responsibility of private companies, he is absolving himself of any responsibility whatsoever for future energy policy.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We are concerned to ensure a diverse and competitive supply of energy. What one can say about strategic plans and detailed projections of the past is that they were all wrong, including those made by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) when he was Secretary of State for Energy.

Mr. Morgan: Would the Minsiter care to comment on what the chairman of Pilkington's told shareholders at the company's annual general meeting a fortnight ago, when he said that one of the advantages of the democratic process in this country is that it might bring in a Labour Government who, unlike the present Government, actually have an energy policy?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I was not at the annual general meeting, but I have visited Pilkington's, and the company was extremely happy with the way in which we are

working with the electricity industry and supplier of energy efficiency equipment to develop such a policy in the United Kingdom.

Wind Farms

Mr. Speller: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on his policy on wind farms.

Mr. Moynihan: Government policy is designed to stimulate the development and application of all forms of renewable energy, including wind farms, wherever they have prospects of being economically competitive and environmentally acceptable.

Mr. Speller: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Mr. Brian Peace of Rackenford in my constituency who has just obtained planning permission for a wind generator on his farm? Does my hon. Friend agree that the requirements are now so difficult and detailed that it might be a good idea if he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State were to give some advice on planning applications both to the applicants and to the councils that have to consider the applications?

Mr. Moynihan: That is a fair point. My Department is working closely with the Welsh Office and the Department of the Environment to prepare a planning policy guidance note to assist in the planning process.

Dr. Thomas: The Minister has kindly anticipated my question. Although I do not wish to provoke a dispute between his Department and the Secretary of State for Wales, who is currently considering an application for a wind farm on my constituency boundary, will he assure the House and those who are interested in alternative sources of energy that his Department will produce those guidelines rapidly so as to encourage further such applications, especially from rural areas where the development of wind farms can benefit the agricultural economy as well as providing for local energy needs?

Mr. Moynihan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his introductory remarks. Although I cannot comment on the specific case to which he has referred, which is known as the Cymmaes case, I can confirm that I am anxious to see wind farms built and demonstrated within the United Kingdom. I am therefore concerned about any delays or possible effects on the viability of such projects due to lack of planning policy guidance. That is one reason why we place such high priority on producing guidance along the lines that 1 mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller).

Oil and Gas Reserves

Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest estimate of the level of oil and gas reserves on the United Kingdom continental shelf.

Mr. Moynihan: My Department's report to Parliament of April this year on the "Development of the Oil and Gas Resources of the United Kingdom"—the Brown Book—gives our latest estimates of reserves. They show that additions to reserves during last year kept pace with production during the year in the case of oil, and exceeded production in the case of gas.

Mr. Burns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that those healthy estimates confound the moaning minnies and pessimists who constantly claim that our reserves are running out? Does he further agree that those figures will have a healthy influence on the British economy in the next few years?

Mr. Moynihan: I agree with my hon. Friend. Nearly half the oil so far discovered on the United Kingdom continental shelf and almost two thirds of the gas remain to be produced. We look set, therefore, to remain self-sufficient in oil well into the decade and a significant producer into the next century.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister confirm that in recent years we have been able to extract oil from below the North sea because of the different incentives introduced by the Government, through Acts of Parliament, to enable the smaller pools of oil to be used? Does he agree that if it is possible to use incentives to extract oil in that way, it is sensible to do the same for coal that is located in thinner seams? The Government should not have double standards.

Mr. Moynihan: There are no double standards. Substantial support has been given to coal—far more than has been devoted to the development of oil and gas. The success of oil and gas production in the United Kingdom has been due primarily to the stable fiscal and regulatory regime under which international operators have worked.

Sir Dudley Smith: The information that my hon. Friend has given about gas supplies is encouraging, but is he aware that a substantial minority of people in this country do not have a gas supply? Will he talk to those who now run the gas industry and tell them that anyone living in a reasonably built-up area should have the right to the provision of a gas supply?

Mr. Moynihan: As my hon. Friend knows, the provision of gas supplies to domestic customers in the United Kingdom continues to increase. His point is well taken and will, no doubt, be listened to carefully by British Gas.

Dr. Godman: When considering licence applications from offshore oil and gas companies wishing to extract those most welcome oil and gas reserves, what emphasis is placed on the safety needs of those employed in extracting those reserves? Does the Minister agree that a modern, up-to-date standby vessel fleet is essential for the safety of those workers and will he therefore impress upon the oil and gas companies the manifest need to replace the aging vessels in the fleet with modern purpose-built vessels? That is what is needed by those employed in the offshore oil and gas industry.

Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. However, I draw to his attention that important safety considerations are examined at the annex B or production licence stage and not at the initial licence award round. A company that wins an award for prospectivity must prove that it achieves very high levels of safety, not least those outlined in the Cullen report. The main thrust of the important point that the hon. Gentleman makes, and with which I agree, is dealt with at the production licence stage later.

Mr. Doran: First I welcome the initial statement made by the Minister. Opposition Members share his optimism for the North sea. Is he aware that production will continue to demand the highest possible level of encouragement from the Government? Does he share my anxiety that the Geological Society, which has been engaged in mapping the seabed in the most prospective areas, is to have its contract with the Department of Energy terminated in the next two years, even though it is about to embark on surveying areas in the north-west of Scotland where we have high hopes for further reserves of hydrocarbons?

Mr. Moynihan: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that particular work, which was commissioned a while ago, will complete its normal course in two years when full assessment will have been completed to a depth of 600 ft. If my memory serves me right, arguments to go down to 6,000 ft—which is what we are talking about in the north-west frontier acreage—is totally unreasonable and unnecessary. Of course, we shall review carefully arrangements with outstanding organisations such as the one that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. However, I emphasise that we are not curtailing a report. It will come to its full and complete conclusion in two years.

Electricity Privatisation

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will estimate how many individuals became shareholders as a result of electricity privatisation in England and Wales.

Mr. Wakeham: Some 5 million to 6 million individuals became shareholders in the privatised electricity companies in England and Wales. A recent survey, not yet completed, has estimated that of these some 10 per cent. are new shareholders.

Mr. Marshall: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on successfully concluding the privatisation of the electricity industry which will lead to greater efficiency and keener pricing? Will he bring to the attention of those many millions of shareholders the confiscatory attitude of the Labour party?

Mr. Wakeham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. However, not only the shareholders would suffer loss if the Labour party ever achieved power. The consumers of electricity, the employees of the company, the taxpayers and, indeed, the environment would lose.

Coal Productivity

Mr. Alison: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next intends to meet the chairman of British Coal to discuss productivity.

Mr. Wakeham: I have regular consultations with the chairman of British Coal on all aspects of the coal industry, including the remarkable efforts that the corporation has been making to improve its productivity in its fight for a major share of the United Kingdom coal market over future years.

Mr. Alison: When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman, will he join me in congratulating him and all concerned at British Coal on the astonishing performance of the mineworkers in the Selby group? They have


achieved a productivity record of 12·92 tonnes per man shift—almost double the industry average. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the local generators National Power and PowerGen need look no further than the Selby coalfield for secure, long-term supplies of good quality coal at competitive prices?

Mr. Wakeham: I shall willingly do what my right hon. Friend suggests. Certainly, I congratulate the mineworkers at Selby. Their new weekly productivity record is, as my right hon. Friend says, over 2 tonnes higher than their previous best. Wistow in the Selby complex set a new European output record of 108,700 tonnes in a week. That demonstrates what I have said many times from this Dispatch Box—the coal industry has a great future if its productivity improvement continues in the way that my right hon. Friend describes.

Mr. Eadie: When the right hon. Gentleman next meets the chairman of British Coal will he refer to the outstanding record in coal production achieved by Longannet miners who have broken British records? Does he agree that there is a substantial case for British Coal to reopen Monktonhall colliery in my constituency? I hope that he will subscribe to that.

Mr. Wakeham: I know the hon. Gentleman's concern about Monktonhall colliery, which we all share. British Coal plans to review the future of Monktonhall this summer. We have already written to the chairman of British Coal to ask him to take an early decision on its future. It is a matter for him, but I await with interest what he has to say.

Mr. Andy Stewart: When my right hon. Friend meets the chairman of British Coal will he convey through him our thanks and appreciation to Merrick Spanton, the recently retired chairman of British Coal Enterprise Ltd. While he was there, he created 71,000 new job opportunities in coal mining areas. Will my right hon. Friend tell the new chairman, Mr. John Northard, how we welcome the fact that he and his team will relocate in Edwinstowe in my constituency? As a present for their arrival, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will continue to support the much-needed job-creating enterprise?

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is right to refer to those gentlemen for their distinguished service to the coal industry. He is also right that the Government will continue job-creating work in the future.

Mr. Home Robertson: Will the right hon. Gentleman be more specific in relation to the comments about the future of Monktonhall colliery that he made to my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie)? Is he aware that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary suggested in an Adjournment debate not long ago, that it was likely that Monktonhall would be reopened? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the widespread publicity that that received and the hopes that were raised, not only by Ministers but by British Coal, about the future of employment in that part of Lothian? Will the right hon. Gentleman be more specific?

Mr. Wakeham: I know that the hon. Gentleman will find this disagreeable, but I prefer to wait for the report before I comment on it. I look forward to receiving it as soon as it comes.

Mr. Sumberg: Bearing in mind British Coal's overall responsibility for opencast mining applications, when my right hon. Friend meets the chairman of British Coal will he point out to him that an application has been made to the local council in Bury for an opencast mine in the Radcliffe area in my constituency? Will my right hon. Friend tell the chairman that that application is resolutely opposed by all local residents and that an effective committee, NORACC, has been formed to oppose it? If the application comes before the chairman, will he reject it?

Mr. Wakeham: As my hon. Friend has asked me, I shall certainly refer to the matter when I next see the chairman of British Coal. There is an established procedure. Any opencast applications that do not receive planning permission locally fall to be considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Government are concerned that only applications that meet the highest environmental standards are approved. We shall see that that policy is continued.

East Midlands Electricity

Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what action he proposes to take in response to the report of East Midlands Electricity plc on the electricity supply crisis which arose from severe weather conditions.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I welcome East Midlands' comprehensive report which makes a number of recommendations. My engineering inspectorate will monitor the company's progress in implementing these, to ensure that they are carried out as expeditiously as possible.

Mr. Barnes: Is the Minister aware that the worst of the weather crisis occurred in north Nottinghamshire and in north Derbyshire where hundreds of thousands of people were without electricity and water supplies for a considerable period? That coincided with the flotation of East Midlands Electricity plc and meant that the Government did not declare an emergency in circumstances in which they should normally have done. Should not the Government have set up their own inquiry and not just depended on the inquiry of East Midlands Electricity plc?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: No distribution network could have survived those weather conditions without sustaining damage. All those in the industry—management and staff —worked heroically to restore supplies and it is wrong to refer in any way disparagingly to their efforts or to link the problem to the privatisation of the industry.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: While on the subject of severe weather, will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming last Friday's announcement on improvements to the cold weather payments scheme—the second set of improvements within six months? Will he also confirm that those vast improvements are greatly superior to those on offer under the previous Labour Government?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I welcome that observation, although it was not my Department which introduced those improvements.

Mr. Dobson: Can the Minister confirm that there have been more interruptions in supply to consumers since the electricity industry was privatised? Before he denies that,


will he also confirm that neither the Secretary of State nor the Office of Electricity Regulations can provide any statistics?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The privatisation of electricity has resulted in significant benefits to its consumers, which include timely reaction to any interruption of supply.

Nuclear Energy (Employees)

Sir Trevor Skeet: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the number of people employed in Britain's nuclear energy industry.

Mr. Wakeham: The total number of people directly employed in the British nuclear energy industry is about 40,000.

Sir Trevor Skeet: Does the Secretary of State recognise that unless he is prepared to bring the review of the nuclear industry forward to 1993, he will be faced with a declining nuclear industry? Does he regard with any great satisfaction the fact that France has 75 per cent. of its total electricity produced by the nuclear industry, while Belgium produces 60 per cent. by that method? Why cannot we have a comparable figure of electricity production from our nuclear industry?

Mr. Wakeham: The answer to that question goes back to long before I was Secretary of State; others must bear a share of the responsibility.
My hon. Friend has asked me to bring the 1994 review forward. I am sorry, but I do not believe that that would be the right course of action. I believe that 1994 is the correct time to review the future of the nuclear industry of this country because we will then have completed the Sizewell B project and we will have had an opportunity to consider the various options for the future. The nuclear industry has a good future if it is able to produce electricity at a low cost, and safely.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Fraud

Mr. Carrington: To ask the Attorney-General what progress is being made in improving co-operation between the Serious Fraud Office and overseas agencies in the prosecution of fraud cases.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): Last week the United Kingdom implemented part 1 of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 enabling us to ratify the European convention on mutual assistance; and on 14 May 1991 we also implemented the European convention on extradition.

Mr. Carrington: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. He will be aware that the position of London as the major financial centre in Europe is at least partly dependent upon our ability to prosecute fraud across international boundaries. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the measure of international co-operation now discussed will make it much easier to prosecute fraud across international boundaries?

The Solicitor-General: Yes I do. The director of the Serious Fraud Office keeps in close contact with her overseas equivalents. The measures that I have just

mentioned will enable us to serve summonses and other judicial documents from abroad in the same way as we do here to help to obtain evidence. They also include the use of domestic procedures for police powers of search and seizure. Those measures will enable the transfer of prisoners to give evidence overseas and from overseas to give evidence here. All that is extremely beneficial.

Mr. Dickens: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that as soon as a villain knows that the game is up he immediately hot foots out of the United Kingdom to safety and support overseas? That leaves behind devastation and misery for those companies or people against whom he has committed fraud. Will my right hon. and learned Friend insist that we pull together the support from overseas agencies so that such people can be pursued and convicted?

The Solicitor-General: I agree with my hon. Friend. The object of the measures is such that those alleged to have committed such fraud can be brought back from overseas to face trial.

Grievances (Judicial Remedy)

Mr. Maclennan: To ask the Attorney-General what steps he is considering to ease public access to the judicial remedy of grievances.

The Solicitor-General: Following the Legal Aid Act 1988 and the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, the Government are implementing a series of measures to improve the machinery of civil justice and, in particular, to reduce delay, cost and complexity.

Mr. Maclennan: Is the Solicitor-General aware that the recently published proposals by the Lord Chancellor on legal aid are widely regarded as the most openly retrograde steps proposed since legal aid was introduced in the late 1940s and that they are universally condemned by the legal profession and consumer organisations throughout the country? In the light of the already apparent hostility, will he withdraw them?

The Solicitor-General: The Lord Chancellor's consultation document deserves rather closer examination than that. It offers an opportunity for extending the limits of legal aid upwards in areas where it has not attempted to go under any Government. Whether it will be possible to do so will depend to some extent on the finances available. That it offers an opportunity in that direction, when hitherto no such opportunity has appeared, is something which the hon. Gentleman should no overlook.

Mr. Lawrence: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that a state-funded insurance scheme, which could cover many more people at much less cost than the present legal aid scheme, or tax relief on private insurance, would ensure that there was much greater access to the judicial system than there is at present?

The Solicitor-General: My hon. and learned Friend picks up another of the points to be found in the Lord Chancellor's consultation document, which is well worth careful examination.

Mr. Fraser: Is not the proposal simply the equivalent of urging people to take out a BUPA subscription instead of


using the national health service? Can the Solicitor-General confirm that as a result of the recent freezing of the upper limits of legal aid for income and capital, 1·1 million people who would otherwise be eligible for legal aid are being left out and that there is nothing whatever in the Lord Chancellor's consultative paper to provide any compensation for those who will be disqualified from legal aid simply by saving? Will he please confirm that there is no policy of permanently freezing those upper limits?

The Solicitor-General: There is no policy of permanently freezing the upper limits. Obviously, the non-increase in them this year will have some effect on the numbers who are eligible. The matters that are open for consideration in the consultation document offer opportunities for legal aid in areas where hitherto it has not been available. They include legal aid insurance, which is to be seen in some areas—property insurance policies sometimes include this —and should not be viewed narrowly.

Crown Prosecution Service

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement about vacancy rates in the Crown prosecution service.

The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): Over the past 12 months 315 lawyers have entered the service and vacancies have fallen from 22 to 13 per cent. Vacancies for administrative staff are 4 per cent.

Mr. Marshall: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer which demonstrates a dramatic improvement. What hope does he have that the other vacancies will be filled speedily?

The Attorney-General: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said. The trend is a positive one. It reflects not only the increased salaries available—they are highly competitive—but the improvement in the quality of career which the service offers. We shall continue with that, and I hope to see the service fully recruited in the short term.

Mr. Bermingham: Does the Attorney-General agree that basically vacancies and recruitment problems happen to be in London and the surrounding areas? Does he further agree that were London to recruit at the same levels as Yorkshire, Manchester or many other areas, the service and the courts in London would be that much more enhanced? They are simply overworked in London.

The Attorney-General: Yes, the hon. Gentleman, who has close knowledge of these matters, is right that London is certainly one of the worst areas—or parts of London are. Humberside is another bad area. We must analyse the reasons why. Advertising and the promotion of the service are now devolved to local areas, and they are making great strides. I hope that the improvement that we have noticed will continue. I think that it will.

Children Act

Mr. Hind: To ask the Attorney-General how he plans to deal with the changes in court procedure following the introduction of the Children Act 1990.

The Solicitor-General: Last month family proceedings rules providing for new procedures in the High Court, county courts and magistrates courts were made. In relation to the Children Act, they are effectively identical.

Mr. Hind: I am obliged to my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer. Will he confirm that the Children Act will provide more speedy and compassionate methods of dealing with all matters relating to children? There has been much controversy in recent months and years, such as that surrounding the case in the Orkneys. Does he accept that many members of the Bar are worried about the possible deleterious effect on the speed with which cases go through the courts unless the procedure is properly organised?

The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend is right to look forward to considerable benefits to child law from the implementation of the Children Act. It will provide a uniform system of law for all levels of court, enabling cases to be set at the right level—High Court, county court or magistrates court—as appropriate. The transitional problems are being carefully dealt with, and I have no doubt that the High Court will keep a close watch on the cases that currently come before it and those that will remain before it after the transitional period in October.

Gulf War

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Attorney-General if he has received any representations concerning the legality of weapons used by coalition forces in the Gulf war.

The Attorney-General: I have received representations on this subject from the hon. Member and from the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).

Mr. Flynn: Does the Attorney-General agree that the world community should consider carefully the use of those weapons, which had never before been used on the scale on which they were used in the Gulf war? They are not conventional weapons in the usual sense. They are weapons of mass slaughter which resulted in the deaths of between 100,000 and 200,000 conscripts and injury to 300,000 to 700,000. Is not it time that we viewed air fuel explosives, cluster bombs and daisy cutter bombs as an entirely new way of waging war which should be included, in the interest of the world community, in the inhumane weapons protocol? We must think carefully about the manufacture, sale and deployment of those terrible weapons.

The Attorney-General: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the future line taken by Britain in international legislation or conventions is not a matter for me. The hon. Gentleman particularised his question and mentioned air fuel explosives. He has asked that question before, and he knows that they have been used by only the United States in the Gulf war and only for the purpose of detonating minefields. They have never been used against personnel.
On the larger issue, it must be recognised that there will be casualties if an aggressor occupies a country and the United Nations determines that force must be used as a last resort to throw it out. The responsibility for that lies with the aggressor.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Aid

Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government have any proposals to improve response time for aid to meet crisis situations.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): Yes, we have an excellent record in responding to disasters, but we are always learning from experience. We are currently reviewing our overseas disaster management arrangements and those of the United Nations. Those reviews will be completed shortly.

Mr. Pike: I recognise that time is crucial in a crisis or a disaster, but is the Minister satisfied that although the NHS crisis teams were made available on 1 April, they were still in the United Kingdom and not in Iraq a month later on 1 May? Does she have sufficient people in the crisis unit in her Department? Does she receive the necessary co-operation from other Departments to ensure that a speedy response is given?

Mrs. Chalker: As I think the House knows, I was especially careful to ensure that if anyone went to the Gulf from the national health service as part of a volunteer team, they not only could do their work when they arrived there, but would be accepted by the recipient Government. Teams from other countries had problems which, fortunately, our teams did not encounter because of our preparation work. The people who went gave very good service.
In this three-month period we have doubled the staff in our disaster relief unit. Future plans are for a different organisation, which will respond just as quickly and effectively.

Mr. Wilkinson: Has my right hon. Friend any plans to respond in double-quick time to the horrendous disaster that is unfolding in the Philippines following the awful volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo? Has she been able to consult her European Community partners or the United Nations agencies? The United States is clearly in a better position than we are, as it has military personnel on the spot, and the local Association of South-East Asia Nations powers are also there. Can my right hon. Friend reassure the House, however, that the United Kingdom will do everything in its power to bring assistance to bear?

Mrs. Chalker: We greatly sympathise with the people and Government of the Philippines, who have experienced yet another major natural disaster. The embassy told us today that the Government would be requesting assistance shortly, and we shall do all that we can to meet their specific needs.
I should inform the House that Manila airport is currently closed. However, we have daily contact with our embassy, as the embassy has with the Government of the Philippines. We should not underestimate that Government's own capacity to handle the emergency, but we are ready to help.

Sir David Steel: Is not the Minister concerned at continuing reports that aid is failing to get through to the populations who need it in parts of the Horn of Africa? Notwithstanding the long-term review that she is currently

undertaking, will she support the ad hoc re-establishment of the United Nations office for emergency operations in Africa, which was so successful in 1985–86? When the office was stood down in 1986, we were told that it could be re-established if the need arose. Surely that need has now arisen.

Mrs. Chalker: A very successful meeting has been held between Jim Ingram of the World Food Programme and the leaders of the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front in Addis about directing relief towards the pressure points and the ports of Africa. We are certainly prepared to consider the re-establishment of the UN office, if it is needed. Our current information is, however, that good news has been received, including that of the agreement in the past 48 hours to the air drop to Nasir in northern Sudan. Last week, I was instrumental in requesting that from the Government of Sudan.

Sir Richard Luce: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the prompt action that she always takes when any emergency arises, but does she agree that there is no substitute for international machinery to deal with such emergencies? Both she and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have recommended action on this front; can she tell us what progress has been made?

Mrs. Chalker: The Anglo-German initiative discussed by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and Herr Genscher on 9 June is already in being. It involves the appointment of a senior figure who would report directly to the UN Secretary General, to direct all relief measures within the UN system and to co-ordinate the relief work of the humanitarian agencies and Governments. We do not know yet who that figure will be; we do not even know whether the initiative will be accepted internationally. There is, however, general support for the idea that we and the German Government have presented.

Mrs. Clwyd: Does the Minister agree that the crisis affecting refugees in Iraq is still unresolved? Has she seen the headlines in today's newspapers—for example,
Major's haven plan in tatters
in The Independent, and
Don't leave the Kurds
in the Daily Telegraph? Does she agree with the prediction that if the coalition forces and the United Nations do not guarantee a settlement, another million people will flee Iraq? Is she prepared for that event?
Finally, what would the Minister say to the senior aid worker who, having just returned from Iraq, said:
The whole aid exercise has been completely wasted. If there is no artillery unit to hold the line against the Iraqi troops, the Kurds will run for their lives. They feel betrayed and they are terrified."?

Mrs. Chalker: First, let us get the whole operation of save havens into perspective. We began the exercise in April, and phases 1 and 2 have been successfully completed, providing life-saving relief for people in the mountains and bringing them down into the safe havens. We are now working on phase 3, the aim of which is to give relief to Iraqi people in northern Iraq. That means re-integrating people into their own communities in Iraq, with protection. That is why the representatives of the Iraqi people have combined to form a central development committee, formed of the indigenous organisations, with three specialist sub-committees: one in engineering, one in agriculture and one in health. With the representatives of


the Kurdish Democratic party and the PUK—Patriotic Union of Kurdistan—working together, it will oversee what happens in the future. That is necessary because we have always agreed—right from the beginning—that allied troops would be deployed temporarily. We have taken no decision about the withdrawal of troops. We are in close touch with our allies and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is discussing the matter with his opposite numbers. I assure the House that, having successfully completed the first two phases, I shall ensure that other phases of the operation are successfully concluded.

Horn of Africa

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to visit the Horn of Africa and Sudan; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Chalker: I would be prepared to visit the Horn of Africa again if it would assist the relief effort. At present, the World Food Programme is working to ensure that maximum use can be made of Port Sudan, Massawa and Assab.

Mr. Greenway: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. May I underline her obvious awareness of the horrendous starvation in the Horn of Africa? Will she say more about the visit of Mr. Jim Ingram to the area? What long-term measures can we support to provide food grown in the area, bearing in mind that unless people learn to grow their own food they will never overcome long-term starvation but will achieve only the short-term effect of being fed for the day?

Mrs. Chalker: We should all congratulate Jim Ingram on his visit to Khartoum and Addis. He says that he has had the most positive response from the leaders of the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democracy Front in respect of relieving the need for food, medicine and shelter. He has also been successful in getting the interim Goverment in Addis Ababa to agree to clear roads in the Gambella area of mines, which are preventing people from moving safely, and to agree to cross-border feeding. There has also been agreement that military convoys will accompany the food convoys to the east in Hararghe. As I said in answer to the right hon. Member for Tweeddale,

Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), there will be a further follow up to the provision of food in Sudan, as well as the agreement to the air drops.

Charities (VAT)

Mr. Wilson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received about the effect of VAT on charities dealing in famine and disaster relief.

Mrs. Chalker: In 1991 we received four specific representations which raised the question of VAT as the primary issue. Some other representations raised the question with other issues. VAT is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who amended the legislation in 1989 to ensure zero rating of charities' fund raising, including the sale of donated goods in charity shops.

Mr. Wilson: Does the Minister accept, however, that charities, especially third world charities, are tremendously concerned that if standardisation takes place throughout Europe, resulting in the loss of zero rating to the charities sector as a whole, some £500 million of income will be lost? For example, Oxfam fears a loss of £5 million. Will the Minister make strong representations to ensure that that does not take place across the board and that there are Europe-wide discussions to draw attention to the problems that loss of zero rating would present for charities?

Mrs. Chalker: I have considered that matter and discussed it with several non-governmental organisations, including the Oxfam representatives on Merseyside. I assure the House that if the European Community were to challenge the United Kingdom legislation on the zero rating of sales of donated goods from charity shops and refunds of VAT on rents, we would resist. Should the European Community attempt to legislate further on the activities of charities, we would stongly defend their voluntary nature and independence. The hon. Gentleman has my word on that.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I shall take points of order after the statement.

Local Government (Wales)

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about local government in Wales.
In my statement to the House on 23 April I announced my intention to publish a consultation paper about the local government structure in Wales. I am publishing that paper today in Welsh and English. It will be extensively distributed throughout Wales, and I wish to consult very widely on its content.
The case for the establishment of a system of unitary authorities throughout Wales has been put to me by many people, including those in the Assembly of Welsh Counties and the Council of Welsh Districts. I agree that we should now consider moving towards such a system. My consultation paper therefore sets out for public debate the considerations that must be borne in mind in determining the size and number of the new authorities.
We must look to create a structure that can deliver high-quality services efficiently and economically, whether those services are delivered directly by the authority itself or through contractual arrangements with another agency. Local services are vitally important to very many people, and we must not put delivery of those services at risk by proposals for reorganisation that are not fully thought through. But people do not look to their local authorities only as deliverers of services. They also want to see authorities that reflect, enhance and strengthen the local communities, which are such an important feature of Welsh life. During my discussions throughout Wales, the clear message that I have received has been that it is vital that the structure of local government that is produced is one with which the people of Wales can identify.
I am today presenting for public debate a number of possible arrangements for local government in Wales. Among these, I see particular attractions in a structure of 20 authorities illustrated in one of the maps set out for discussion; but I make it absolutely clear to the House that I have reached no final decisions and, before doing so, I propose to consult widely. I also repeat to the House what I say in the paper: it is wrong to start from a desired number of authorities and then try to fit service provision into that structure. Rather, the number of authorities, and their size, must flow from a careful balancing of all the various relevant considerations.
I should also say something about community councils. Whatever may be the outcome of those consultations, some of the new authorities may cover larger areas than do the present districts. We must ensure that this does not lead to a loss of responsiveness to local opinion. Community and town councils therefore have an important role as the voice of their communities to the wider world. I want to consider the case for developing that role within a new local government structure.
I am not today proposing any tight times scale for the reforms that I envisage. This is a vitally important matter and we must not be rushed into decisions. I also bear it in mind that local authorities will face a major task in implementing the council tax from 1993, but it is desirable that local authorities should be able to plan ahead effectively. I therefore intend, in the light of the comments I receive, to come forward early next year with firm proposals. But let me make one thing clear. I will not bring

forward any reorganisation unless I am satisfied that it is capable of bringing long-term benefits and improvements in efficiency. The real administrative cost of local authority services under the new arrangements must not be greater than under the existing structure, and the potential for real efficiency savings should be demonstrable. I should finally make clear that the paper makes no reference to the question of an assembly for Wales. The arguments that have been put to me have not been advanced with great force or unanimity, and they have failed to persuade me that there is any case for creating an assembly.
On the contrary, Wales has benefited considerably from having a Secretary of State with a voice in Cabinet and from the effective working relationships that have been established with and between central Government, local government and the private sector in Wales. In contrast, the result of creating an assembly would be a Welsh Office with no capacity for significant influence on central Government, and a Welsh executive authority detached from central Government and thus unable to argue the case for Wales where the real decisions are taken—at the heart of central Government.
Given a choice between a strong Secretary of State and an elected executive authority, the Government are in no doubt whatever that the interests of the people of Wales would be best served by maintenance of the present arrangements. They are reinforced in that view by the fact that the judgment of the 1979 referendum was the same—and by an overwhelming margin.
The consultation paper sets out our proposals on the way forward for local democracy in Wales. I believe that we should consider moving towards unitary authorities as the best foundation. The proper size and number of such authorities, however, are matters on which everybody will have a view. The paper sets out three suggestions, one of which I consider the most attractive. But all three are offered as a basis of consultation.
The paper that I am publishing today marks another important step in the Government's review of local government. I intend to consult widely and, in accordance with our Welsh tradition, proceed as far as possible by discussion and agreement with interested parties.
In Wales, we have a historic opportunity to build on the positive partnership between central and local government in the Principality, which is the envy of many other parts of the United Kingdom.
The challenge that faces us is to establish a structure of local government that will serve Wales well for many years to come. That is the target. I now want to consult the people of Wales on how best we may achieve that result, and I invite right hon. Members from all parties to contribute to that debate. I commend the consultation paper to the House.

Mr. Barry Jones: Does the Secretary of State understand that Labour party policy is to retain the great office of Secretary of State for Wales? A Labour Premier, Harold Wilson, installed the great James Griffiths as the first Secretary of State for Wales, and Mr. Griffiths—then the Member of Parliament for Llanelli—established the Welsh Office. I remind the right hon. Gentleman also that Labour created the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales, and gave to the Secretary of State the considerable powers contained in sections 7 and 8 of the Industry Act 1975.
Is not the right hon. Gentleman in office because of Labour's great commitment to the governance of Wales? He is the last person to talk to us about the office of Secretary of State for Wales. His party was always hostile to proposals for a Department of State.
As to unitary authorities, I hope that the consultations will be more thorough and genuine than those on the poll tax. Has the Secretary of State considered establishing a commission? Does he accept that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and that we welcome the fact that he has accepted Labour's case for unitary authorities? Does he accept also that the number and boundaries of the unitary authorities should be determined by the Secretary of State only after appropriate and genuine consultation? A political decision would bring with it hints of gerrymandering, especially in the redrawing of boundaries in the south Wales valleys and in north-east Wales. I give the right hon. Gentleman a strong warning on that matter.
Why is the Secretary of State dividing the map of Wales on the advice of civil servants? We want to create a durable structure of local government, and to do that there must be genuine and extensive consultation with local communities, not a back-of-the envelope job that will satisfy the needs of the Conservative party manifesto. The Government have a tendency to legislate in haste and repent at leisure.
The Secretary of State's failure to come out in support of a regional government leaves his proposals unbalanced and the key problems unresolved. If the proposals aim at more effective, responsive local government, why is that principle not to be extended to the ever growing list of quangos in the right hon. Gentleman's gift? The many bodies appointed by the Secretary of State which exercise powers in Wales should be made more accountable to the people of Wales. There is one law for Whitehall and another for the town hall.
The Secretary of State's argument that a Welsh assembly would leave Wales isolated in Europe is nonsense. Our European partners have already recognised the value of decentralising, but the right hon. Gentleman is ready to consign Wales to the backwaters of Europe. Britain is the only country in the Common Market that does not have regional government. In the decades ahead the national boundaries of Britain will diminish in importance while regional and local identities and decisions will grow in importance.
We in Wales cannot afford to be left behind by the rest of Europe. Why, as today's Western Mail alleges, is the Secretary of State committing Wales to the dark ages? A Welsh assembly is a vital component of a thoroughgoing and durable reform of local government and will benefit democracy, accountability and economic development. The statement will satisfy no one. It is a retreat, it is timid, and it is a missed opportunity.

Mr. Hunt: I shall deal with the important announcement—it is worrying that it had to be an announcement—that a Labour Government would retain the post of Secretary of State for Wales.

Mr. John. P. Smith: The Labour party has had that on the record for two years.
Mr. Hunt: Why was it necessary for the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) to put it on the record,

as the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) has said? I shall also quote from the Western Mail which states:
The Conservatives remain opposed to devolved assemblies. We think this is wrong, if consistent. But Labour's … cobbled-together proposals could seriously disadvantage Wales. 'Half-baked and half-hearted' is one recent description of the overall proposals, as they stand. We agree. They need to be re-examined.
The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside is saying not that they need to be re-examined, but that they have been misread.

Mr. Barry Jones: Read them.

Mr. Hunt: I have read them and I do not think for a moment that they recognise the importance of Wales's separate identity. The document that the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside keeps waving acknowledges that only after the English regional equivalents have been created in the first term of a Labour Government—if one were elected—would a Labour Government proceed to establish elected regional governments in England and, in parallel, a Welsh assembly in Cardiff. They would regionalise Wales and regulate it to the same status as any region in England.
Secondly, the hon., Gentleman wanted the consultations to be more genuine than the consultations over the council tax. [HON. MEMBERS: "Poll tax."]—more genuine than the consultations on the poll tax or community charge. I had the opportunity this morning of meeting the local authority associations and I was delighted to hear from them that they believe that our proposals for a council tax are just the sort of proposals on which can be built an efficient system of local government finance in Wales. I welcome the words of the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance. The hon. Gentleman may feel that the consultations were not genuine, but he created some of the problems by refusing to join the consultations. The other Opposition parties joined the consultation and I had interesting discussions with them, but the hon. Gentleman never came through the door of consultation. I hope that he will do so on this occasion.
Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman asked why we were not establishing a commission. He alleged that the Secretary of State was trying, on the back of an envelope, to gerrymander Wales. I would hardly be having consultations if that were my intention. If the hon. Gentleman really believes that we need to set up a commission—I do not know who would head it—to tell us how to reorganise the local government structure in Wales, he has not been listening to his colleagues in the Council of Welsh Districts, who believe that a commission is not necessary.
The hon. Gentleman then said that unitary authorities were Labour party policy. I would hardly have believed that when I first came to the House, given the debates that took place under the Labour Government between 1974 and 1979. Yet again, the hon. Gentleman is trying to rewrite history.
Fifthly, the hon. Gentleman claimed that we would relegate ourselves to the backwaters of Europe, but the Welsh Office, under this Secretary of State and his predecessor, with other Ministers in the Welsh Office—in particular, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who has received the most richly deserved Privy Councillorship that I can recall—has set up links with Baden-Wurttemberg, and is building the links with Lombardy,


Rhône-Alpes and Catalonia. We are not relegated to the backwaters of Europe. Furthermore, the Presidents and Prime Ministers of those regions wish that they had the opportunity that the Secretary of State has to sit in a national Cabinet. They do not have a seat in their national or federal Governments.
I have this to say about an assembly and devolution. I recall, and I reread just a few moments ago, an article written in 1976 by the Leader of the Opposition. It said:
At the height of the most threatening economic crisis of our lifetime the Government is going to spend most of Parliament's time next year tearing the United Kingdom asunder … Could devolution, the very policy intended to bind the unity of the kingdom, actually turn the healthy cultural diversities into ugly national demarcations?
For once in my life, I agree with the Leader of the Opposition.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that there is a statement on Scotland after this, followed by a rather busy day with a Committee stage and then an order. I will try to call all those hon. Members who are rising, but I ask them to ask brief questions and to ensure that they are questions and not comments.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be a general welcome for the broad principles that he has enunciated? Clearly, the detail will need discussion and debate. Does he share my delight at the welcome change in the Labour party, which will now apparently consult on the matter? That is as nice a change as the sudden and belated discovery of Europe by the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones). Will my right hon. Friend accept that, at first sight, the proposals for a merger between Colwyn and Aberconwy, subject always to the review that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will be having, seems to be very much along the right lines? The rest of the proposals will need examination and consultation. Will he also accept that there will be a general welcome for the idea of an enhanced role for the community councils?

Mr. Hunt: I join my hon. Friend in welcoming the agreement of the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) to enter the consultations on the future structure of local government. I must say to the hon. Gentleman, as I did over the consultations on local government finance, that he has a standing invitation to come to see me and to bring any of his right hon. and hon. Friends with him so that they can tell me what they believe should be the future structure of local government. I greatly welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman will do that and I look forward to seeing him on that basis as soon as possible. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer), I greatly welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman has changed his mind about consultations and that he will enter them in a meaningful way.
When the details of the proposed arrangements are looked into, they will strike a chord. I have sought to ensure that we recognise local communities and local identities, which is why, in certain instances, it is possible to cross existing county boundaries and why it is possible to look at the whole question of town and community councils as providing a basis on which we can move forward.

Mr. Richard Livsey: Although I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has produced a Green Paper, which is a good thing from the point of view of consultation, does he agree that there is general political agreement that unitary authorities are the answer in Wales? I am extremely disappointed that he has not brought forward proposals for a Welsh assembly. Why can the President of France, the President of the United States and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland all head countries that have administrations that may not coincide with them politically and yet they still get on with the job? Surely the Secretary of State should embrace the idea of a truly democratically elected assembly—elected by proportional representation. His post would not necessarily be abolished in those circumstances, which would abolish his main opposition to the proposal for a Welsh assembly. He is missing a huge opportunity by not having a Welsh assembly that is truly democratically elected.

Mr. Hunt: The most interesting phrase in that explanation of Liberal Democrat policy was:
His post would not necessarily be abolished.
The hon. Gentleman recognises, as I do, the serious problems in the European comparisons that he made. He will recognise that the Presidents or Prime Ministers of, for example, Baden-Wurttemberg, Lombardy, Catalonia and Rhone-Alpes do not sit in their national Cabinets. That is the biggest difference. I want us to take every possible advantage of a position that has been used to good effect by my predecessors, especially by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) and by his predecessor Lord Crickhowell to promote the interests of Wales. That advantage would be lost if we moved in the direction that the hon. Gentleman seeks.

Mr. Alan Williams: I have long believed in the principle of unitary authorities and I welcome that part of the statement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Having enjoyed a brief "Hear, hear" from a couple of colleagues, may I ensure universal disapproval in the Chamber by putting another proposition to the Secretary of State? While he carries out his consultations on the form and powers related to a unitary authority, rather than ruling out altogether the prospect of an assembly, why does not he consider the possibility of putting the ideas to the people of Wales concurrently? While we are carrying out our discussions and he is carrying out his, the people of Wales will have a say on whether they want an assembly.

Mr. Hunt: I was not aware that, under the Labour party's proposals, the proposal for a Welsh assembly would be put again to the people of Wales. It is incumbent on those who seek to ride roughshod over the result of the referendum to put forward proposals again to the people of Wales. As I propose to comply with the result of the referendum, I hardly believe that it is necessary for me to put a re-endorsement to the people of Wales.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: May I tell my right hon. Friend that his recognition of the fact that the sterile debate about a regional assembly for Wales has produced no new ideas has received the warmest response in Wales because most of the people of Wales would regard such a remote body—which would cost us £1 million a week before it took any action at all—as wanton irrelevance? Instead, the proposal for single-tier councils is most welcome, especially in the capital city of Wales, as those


councils will be much more cost-effective and will be closer to the people whom they should represent. Having said that, may I urge my right hon. Friend to give his unhurried consideration to the idea of expanding Wales's premier parliamentary body, the Welsh Grant Committee, to include more of the leaders of the Welsh economy, and to turning that committee into a forum which, under his chairmanship, can better discuss how Wales may continue to move forward?

Mr. Hunt: On the first point, I agree with my hon. Friend. As I believe I have made clear, the arguments that I have heard have not persuaded me that there is any case for an assembly for Wales. I believe that the people of Wales benefit from having a Secretary of State with a voice in Cabinet. The people of Wales voted strongly against an assembly in 1979. I have seen no good evidence to suggest that they have changed their view and they are wise not to have done so.
My hon. Friend's proposal for the Welsh Grant Committee is a matter for that committee, and for others, to consider but it is certainly worthy of further consideration.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Is the Secretary of State aware that we are not surprised to hear that he does not want a Welsh assembly, given that 12 years of Tory Government have turned us into the most centralised state in western Europe—far more centralised even than France?
I think that most people would agree with the right hon. Gentleman's proposals for unitary authorities. Does he agree that community councils, which he mentioned, will have to be strengthened if we are to have unitary authorities and that the Local Government Act 1972, which did not put them on a proper basis, needs to be changed or repealed so that they are placed on such a basis and can represent their communities?

Mr. Hunt: I certainly agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we should consider the whole question of town and community councils. I have gone out of my way to make it clear that I want such councils to be part of the consultation process and I am arranging for a copy of the consultation paper to be sent today to every community and town council throughout Wales. I very much want to hear from those councils and from those with ideas about the sort of role that they could play in the new local government structure.

Mr. Keith Raffan: While I welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to a system of unitary authorities, I deeply regret the fact that he has ruled out support for a Welsh assembly. He has said that he will consider the establishment of a body to co-ordinate economic strategy and other matters in Wales. Will he elaborate on that and tell the House whether, in his view, such a body would be a debating forum, what it would be allowed to discuss, how many members it would have, where those members would be drawn from and whether they would include Members of Parliament?

Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend has made no secret of his own particular opinions about a Welsh assembly; indeed, he has voiced them in the Chamber before now.
On the second part of my hon. Friend's question, let me explain that the Council of Welsh Districts recently presented me with a proposal for a Welsh economic forum to improve collaboration and partnership between all the bodies involved in economic regeneration. I was impressed by the council's argument that there was a role for a more structured discussion on economic matters. With the training and enterprise councils now on stream, and with the establishment of new funding councils for further education—and for higher education in future—there is also a need to ensure that there is the closest possible contact between all those involved in education and training and in the business sector. I shall therefore soon be consulting the various bodies that might be involved—the development agencies, the TECs, representatives of local government and of the education world, CBI Wales and the Welsh TUC—to discuss how matters may best be taken forward. I have asked my team at the Welsh Office to give the matter high priority.

Mr. Huw Edwards: Does the Secretary of State agree that, during his short period in office, we have seen the most amazing transformation in the political structures of eastern Europe—a process of democratisation brought about by peaceful protest? In the light of his intransigence over the issue of a Welsh assembly, what hope is he giving to the people of Wales—the young people of Wales especially—that, in future, they will be living in a society, and in a country, which is less bureaucratic, less centralised and more democratic?

Mr. Hunt: I recognise the significance of the hon. Gentleman's point. I want to establish a very effective local government structure in Wales. I want our young people to fly high in their own land. I do not want them to move out of Wales. I want to give them every possible opportunity to stay in Wales and fly high there. I am aware of the local government structure in central and eastern Europe.
However, the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) will recognise that there is no similarity between the Welsh position and the regions in central and eastern European countries, because the Welsh have a Secretary of State sitting in the national Cabinet. If the hon. Member praises the local government structure in Poland, will he please also pay tribute to the fact that I went out there and helped them to set it up?

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does not the Secretary of State accept that the linchpin of the consensus that existed on the issue in Wales was the question of an elected assembly, a proposal put forward by the district councils, the county councils in Wales and every political party in Wales except the Conservative party? Why can we have elected democracy on a community level, on a district or county level and on a Westminster or European level, but no democratic answerability for the £5,000 million—£100 million a week—that the Secretary of State for Wales spends? Why can we not have answerability for that to the people of Wales?

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman feels enormously strongly about that issue and he puts his view to me in public and in private on every possible and conceivable occasion. I pay tribute to him for that. However, I am


accountable in this Chamber. I am accountable for the range of responsibilities that I have as Secretary of State. The real accountability lies in the mother of Parliaments.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. Friend recall that in 1974, when local government was reorganised, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) suggested that county names would not change when the local authority names changed? I was born in Glamorganshire whose name has changed three times and may even be wiped off the map if we do not do something positive about it. Has my right hon. Friend any proposals to encourage the use of the old county names with regard to postal districts?

Mr. Hunt: During my consultations in Wales I have discovered a strong view in certain parts of Wales that people want some historic names and titles to return. I make it clear that I will listen to those views very carefully in the consultation process.

Mr. John P. Smith: I was directly involved in the widest ever consultation on this subject in Wales between 1988 and 1990 with the working party of the Welsh Labour party. Is the Secretary of State aware that I find it absolutely incomprehensible that he has today ruled out the possibility of regional government as well as the possibility of a strong Secretary of State for Wales?

Mr. Hunt: I must make it absolutely clear that I totally reject the Labour party's proposals. The Labour party proposes that, with the creation of a Welsh assembly, the role of the Secretary of State would be to scrutinise parliamentary legislation to consider its relevance to Wales and to arrange for modifications where appropriate. I had always thought that scrutiny and modification of legislation were matters for this House rather than for a Secretary of State. Labour's proposals would limit the role of the Secretary of State for Wales
to promoting Welsh interest abroad.
Is that really an adequate job description for a Cabinet Minister?

Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: Will the Secretary of State help me as I am having difficulty in that I am suffering from a little deja vu? Are we approaching 1992 or are we back in 1962? It appears that the Secretary of State has produced what is probably the most backward-looking document in the history of post-war Welsh politics. Does he accept that all his reference points hark back to 1979 and he is now apparently proposing to establish a Welsh economic council the like of which was established by a Labour Government back in the 1960s? Which of our esteemed colleagues in European Governments such as the Ministers of Baden-Württemberg or Catalonia are about to resign their democratic posts in order to join the United Kingdom Cabinet?

Mr. Hunt: On the hon. Gentleman's final point, in my discussions with our regional counterparts in the important motor regions they constantly said how much they envy the fact that we have a Secretary of State for Wales who sits in the United Kingdom Cabinet. They would like to sit not in the United Kingdom Cabinet but in their own federal or national Cabinet.
On looking back, I thought that I had turned my mind against looking back to the result of the 1979 referendum.

Opposition parties would have us go back to before that referendum decision. I believe that we must pay attention to the result of that referendum, which emphatically rejected the idea of a Welsh assembly.

Mr. John Butcher: As part of his consultation, will my right hon. Friend undertake to meet Welsh members of the Association of British Counties, an organisation which is dedicated to the restoration and retention where possible of traditional county names and historical counties? Will he welcome the use of county names such as Montgomeryshire, Radnorshire and Monmouth? Wherever possible, unitary authorities, which Opposition Members would welcome, should coincide also with their traditional boundaries of yesteryear.

Mr. Hunt: Of course I shall meet that body, and I should be particularly pleased if my hon. Friend came with me. The preferred option that I have put forward establishes the unitary authority not only of Ynys Môn but of Pembrokeshire, Ceredigion, Carmarthen, Brecon and Radnor, Montgomeryshire, Monmouth and several others. That is recognition of the strength of the local communities and the wish to see such a unitary authority established.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Is there no humility on the Government Benches? The Secretary of State appears to be implying that the Conservative party is best equipped, as indeed occurred with the poll tax, to deal with the bungled messes of previous Conservative Governments on unitary authorities. As for his tentative proposal for a Welsh economic forum, is the Secretary of State aware that Lord Crickhowell, one of his predecessors, proposed such a body in 1979, which then went to sleep, and that much has happened since? We have had 12 years of Conservative centralisation so that now only 8 per cent. of local government revenue in Wales is from a local tax base. We have had the European dimension, and we have had quangos packed with Tory placemen. The right hon. Gentleman's idea would be rejected as both irrelevant and impertinent. If the Secretary of State is really concerned about consultation, will we have an opportunity for a full day's debate on the issue in the House before the summer recess?

Mr. Hunt: Time for a debate is certainly not a matter for me. I take up the hon. Gentleman on describing as impertinent the proposal that I have just welcomed from the Council of Welsh Districts. Perhaps he should talk to his colleagues in the Council of Welsh Districts whom I met earlier today and who put to me very strongly the need for that body. I have said that I recognise that they have a case, and I wish to examine the proposals further. However, I am not looking back. I hope that the hon. Gentleman would not think that the Council of Welsh Districts spends its time looking back, because I do not believe that it does.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Does not the Secretary of State observe that changes in Welsh democracy over the past 10 years have been the mirror image of what has happened in eastern Europe? In eastern Europe, the old unelected nomenklaturas of communists are losing their powers, while genuinely elected bodies are gaining powers through democracy. In Wales, the reverse has been true. Our elected councils have lost power,


influence and resources while non-elected quangos are getting greater power, being stuffed by representatives of the Conservative party and other card-carrying fellow travellers. Those groups are entirely undemocratic.
Will the Secretary of State observe also that the people of Newport rejected the reorganisation by the Conservative party in the 1970s because they wanted a unitary authority? They also want a unitary authority now and look forward to its coming about by a referendum of all the people of Wales in the next general election.

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman has not read the document. He does not realise what is proposed. I should have thought that, rather than urge me to set up an assembly in Cardiff to run Newport, he should welcome the fact that I propose a unitary authority for Newport.

Mr. Win Griffiths: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Wyn Roberts—I mean Mr. Win Griffiths.

Mr. Win Griffiths: I would not wish to have all the honours that have been bestowed upon the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts).
Given the great emphasis that the Secretary of State has placed on consultation, will he guarantee, first, that if a definite view emerges from the consultation, that will be the one that he will support and, secondly, if it becomes clear during the consultation that there is a desire for a Welsh assembly, whatever might be its exact powers and authority, the right hon. Gentleman will accept that that is the view of the organisations that he has consulted and will support it himself?

Mr. Hunt: On the hon. Gentleman's first point about honours, we all note his bid to follow his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Sir P. Duffy) in seeking recognition. On the main burden of what he said, how on earth can I say in advance whether I would follow one of the views that emerges in the consultation or another? I very much look forward to hearing the views. I must then decide and lay proposals before the House.

Mr. Peter Hain: While I welcome the Secretary of State's option, which keeps Neath separate from the Swansea conurbation, will the right hon. Gentleman concede that in proposing an economic forum to oversee the strategic economic policy affecting Wales, he is conceding the case for a strategic view that could apply equally to transport, planning and other matters? Does he further agree that such a strategic view is best exercised not by a non-elected unaccountable quango but by an elected assembly for Wales, without which Wales will go naked into Europe as it is integrated into Europe?

Mr. Hunt: I am never quite sure what the Labour party is proposing, because one of its proposals is for Members of Parliament to sit in an assembly in Cardiff with an equal number of local councillors. That is the latest proposal for a Welsh assembly that I have received from the Assembly of Welsh Counties. I am not sure how that would sit easily with the democratic accountability of the Government in this place. However, I am delighted that, rather than spending all his time urging that Neath should be ruled from Cardiff, the hon. Gentleman has welcomed my proposals for Neath.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: As one of the civil servants at the Welsh Office who, in 1972, wasted a dreary 12 months of his life assisting the then Conservative Secretary of State with the present unpopular two-tier structure for local government—[Interruption.] I take no responsibility for it. That belongs with the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) who introduced the two-tier structure for local government, which the Conservatives now say is wrong. However, may I give full marks to this Secretary of State for reversing the mistakes of the previous Conservative Secretary of State who devised the two-tier structure, despite the advice of the civil servants of the time? His proposal for 20 single-tier authorities—I may be out by one; the figure may be 21—is a sound idea.
Turning to the right hon. Gentleman's views about a Welsh assembly, however, there is absolutely no agreement on that matter between him and me and most other people in Wales. Wales does not want more quangos, but what is now proposed is some kind of quango that will sit on top of all the other quangos—a super Welsh quango or what one could call a llango. One reason that the right hon. Gentleman does not want a Welsh assembly is that he knows that his party could never win it.

Mr. Hunt: May I urge the hon. Gentleman to spell for the benefit of Hansard the new word that he has just used? I have heard about the hon. Gentleman's previous employment at the Welsh Office. Whenever I raise that subject, people tend to talk in hushed whispers and now I know why. May I ask the hon. Gentleman which one he thinks that I missed out of the 20, and may I thank him for having welcomed the proposals in general?

Mr. Paul Murphy: Does the Secretary of State really think that the consultation process is anything other than a sham? This afternoon he told my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) that he would like to consult him about these matters, yet he has also this afternoon rejected "The future of local government in Wales", which is the Labour party's proposal. How can the consultation exercise be anything other than a sham?
Does not the Secretary of State also agree that, before he mentions the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in 1979, he might well recall his own remarks about the poll tax during the past few years? Does he agree that the only recent example of consultation about local government reform and finance in Wales in the past few years was about the poll tax and that the last thing that we want is a re-run of that appalling crisis?

Mr. Hunt: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman puts my remarks on a par with the previous remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. However, I regret to inform the hon. Gentleman that his right hon. Friend went much further in rejecting the concept of a Welsh assembly. I had not realised that the document to which he referred had been endorsed as official Labour party policy. If that is true, I am very worried.
If I recall correctly, the Leader of the Opposition constantly made a point with which I find myself in agreement. He said:
Conflicts are likely to arise every time the Welsh … assembly introduces any significant economic, political or social change, every time that a nationalised industry takes an important spending decision with UK-wide implications.


Those are the words of the Leader of the Opposition in the Morning Star on 25 February 1976, just before I entered the House. I find myself in entire agreement with them. I hope that, when the hon. Gentleman comes to see me for consultation, he will put aside some of the more rarefied proposals that he and his party have made and will engage in meaningful and genuine consultation.

Mr. Speaker: We are now to have a statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I will take it after the statement.

Mr. Clarke: It is about the statement.

Mr. Speaker: Let us have the statement first arid then I will take the point of order.

Mr. Clarke: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If a matter of order arises from the statement, I will hear the point of order but let us have the statement first.

Local Government (Scotland)

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the structure of local government in Scotland.
In my statement to the House on 23 April I said that there would be separate consultation on the structure of local government in Scotland. As the first stage of that process I am publishing today a consultation paper. A wide range of interests will receive copies of the paper, and I look forward to receiving comments on it.
I believe that the time is right for a move to a single tier of unitary authorities throughout Scotland and the consultation paper explains why I take this view. It describes the many changes which have taken place in local government since Lord Wheatley's commission presented its report in 1969 and since the subsequent establishment of our present two-tier system in 1975. It sets out the case for change and the case for a single tier. It also seeks to establish the principles upon which the new system should be based. It invites views on these and on a range of other issues, including how we can minimise the costs and disruption of reform. In order to allow time for these important matters to be considered properly, the consultation period will last until 31 October.
There are good arguments of principle for single-tier local government, and in my view the time is now ripe to make the change. A single tier of local government is more readily understood than two tiers, which create confusion about who is responsible for what. That inevitably clouds accountability. Avoiding the overlap also cuts out a degree of duplication and waste. It is also clear that some regional councils are seen as too large and remote from the communities that they serve, while allegiances to the old counties remain strong in some areas. A single-tier system will be simpler, clearer and more local. As the role of local government evolves, now is the time to make the change. This paper sets out the case for reform, and the principles on which it should be based.
As the paper makes clear, this is a genuine consultation exercise and it will not be rushed. I intend to consider very carefully the comments received in response to this paper before moving on to the next stage which will seek to identify the options for change, establish what the new structure should be and whether any changes in the management and organisation of the new authorities are desirable or necessary.
I have received representations arguing in favour of an independent commission to advise on structural change. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has concluded that this is the appropriate way forward for the circumstances of England. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales takes a different view in considering the needs of the Principality, as we have just heard. My approach is tailored to Scottish circumstances. If consultees wish to express views on how the next stage of the exercise should be conducted in order to achieve the best and most informed result, I should be happy to consider them, but I am not at present persuaded that an advisory commission is necessary.
I believe that the proposal of a move to single tier and the principles outlined in this paper will command widespread support throughout Scotland. All of the main


Scottish parties now support a single-tier system for local government. Some, of course, see it only as an adjunct to a Scottish assembly. I reject the argument that local government reform is necessary only if there is to be a constitutional upheaval off that kind. I am not prepared to debase the currency of local government by treating its reform simply as a by-product of the assembly debate. I view local government reform as a major and separate issue in its own right which requires—and will receive from us—thorough and careful examination. I very much hope that all those with an interest in local government in Scotland and who ought to have local government's interests at heart will play a full and constructive part in the consultative process.
At the end of the process we intend to ensure that the new local government system which emerges is strong, efficient, and cost-effective. We intend to ensure that it is one with which the people of Scotland can identify. We intend to ensure that it will stand the test of time.
The consultation paper I am publishing today takes an important step along that road. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Donald Dewar: Perhaps I should start with praise. This document is less damaging in itself than many that have gone before simply because it says so little. If hon. Members wish to know that there are 0·02 people per hectare in the area of Sutherland district council as against 35 people per hectare in Glasgow, the document will be compulsory reading. It also contains two maps—one that gives us the boundaries of the existing district councils, and another that gives us the boundaries of the existing regional councils—just in case hon. Members and other interested bodies are unaware of them.
We learn from the consultative paper that the Secretary of State is in favour of truth, decency and honour. He wants local authorities firmly rooted in the democratic tradition, capable of discharging their functions effectively and efficiently and accountable to their electorate. Who will quarrel with that? Will the Secretary of State note that local government would be in a far better state if he and his colleagues had paid any heed to these principles in recent years? The Labour party believes that there is a case for one-tier, all-purpose authorities, but in a wider context which includes a Scottish parliament, controlling Scotland's domestic affairs.
Why is the Minister so arrogant in asserting that there is a case for democratic change everywhere but not in the way that the House deals with Scotland's business? The Secretary of State claims that he is not prepared to debase the currency of local government by taking a broader view of the need for change. What cheek, given the damaging vendetta that he has conducted against councils for so many years.
From what I have been able to gather, to make anything of the document, I suspect it will be necessary to read between the lines. Does not the Secretary of State accept that many will look with scepticism at a consultation paper that assumes that local government either must or should lose responsibility for economic planning to local enterprise companies, that housing will largely pass to Government quangos and that education will become more and more marginal as schools opt out? Does not the Secretary of State accept that that is not a

view compatible with any faith in local democracy? Does he not accept that it would be wrong to use reform as a cover for stripping local government of important functions that ought to be under democratic control?
I gather that there is only one reference in the document to boundaries. Is it significant that it refers to the four cities being reborn as unitary authorities? Does that represent the Government's thinking, at least at the preliminary stage? Does the reference to joint arrangements, covering services such as the police, fire, water and sewerage, commit the Government to the high-risk exercise of joint boards, and does that rule out the threat of, for example, a national police service?
Will the Secretary of State note that there is strong support for the principle of an independent body to review the facts, sift through the arguments and set out the options? The Labour party believes that the Wheatley precedent is a good one and is in no way undermined by the fact that some of the original recommendations did not survive political debate. Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that without such an independent element the whole exercise may be seen as partial and partisan? I remind the Secretary of State that an independent commission is supported not just by the Opposition parties in the House but by councils of every political hue.

Mr. Lang: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) started his remarks by giving praise, faint but discernible, and gave with approbation a number of quotations from the White Paper. I welcome his support for a number of the principles we have set out in the White Paper. I also welcome his specific and almost unqualified statement of belief in single-tier local authorities. That belief had an important qualification because he wanted to establish another tier over and above those local authorities—a tax-raising assembly based in Edinburgh. That would not make local government more local, nor would it be devolution; it would be centralisation of local government and contrary to what we are trying to do.
I believe that local government should be considered on its own merits. We should be concerned with the health and future of local government, as is demonstrated by the White Paper.
The hon. Gentleman related one or two changing roles in local authorities that I could not recognise. Whether they are Labour party policy I do not know. We are consulting on local government and we shall be interested in any proposals on the changing functions for local authorities. It is true that their role is changing into one of enabling others to deliver services rather than at their own hand.
The hon. Gentleman asked about cities being unitary authorities and I accept that that is a probable outcome, n6but I am open to consultation. I shall be interested to hear what submissions are made in the course of the consultation period.
The hon Gentleman asked me whether we were contemplating the use of joint boards for the police or a national police service. It is unlikely that we would reach a conclusion in favour of a national police service. I cannot think of any service at present delivered by local authorities that could be better delivered on a national basis.
On the question of a commission, I believe, as I said in my statement, that what is right for Scotland is not


necessarily what is right for the much more complex, diffuse and diverse situation in England. I do not believe that a commission is necessary as part of the consultation process, but I am willing to listen to any proposals on how we may seek advice on elements of our proposals as we develop them through consultation on the White Paper and future consultation.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Speaking on behalf of the Liberal Democrats—

Mr. John Home Robertson: And for the Scottish National party.

Mr. Kirkwood: By default for the SNP as its members are not here.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: And for the Tories?

Mr. Kirkwood: I will not speak for them.
My party welcomes the opportunity to take part in the consultations. Will the Secretary of State categorically state that the Government believe that local government is more than just a collection of structures and functions? It has a fundamentally important role in providing local communities with an effective, democratic voice. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure me that that will not be prejudiced in the course of the consultations?
It seems nonsensical to commence consultation on determining the structure of local government when we have just concluded the consultation process on finance. No doubt after that we shall consider the functions of local government. It would be much better to have a more coherent, all-in approach to the reform of local government.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that he will take cognisance of any submissions on the system of elections for the structures of the new authorities and that proportional representation will be part of that system?
The tone of the right hon. Gentleman's statement is quite different from the statements for England and Wales. He appears to be more inflexible about single-tier authorities. If a case is made for local variations in different parts of Scotland, will he assure us that he will give urgent consideration to that approach in the course of the consultation?

Mr. Lang: I am sure that the proposals in the White Paper and my statement are not inflexible. Flexibility is the keynote to our approach. We believe that what is right for one part of Scotland is not necessarily right for another part of Scotland in terms of the size and scale of the country.
We want to establish the kind of local authority structure that best meets the local aspirations of people all over the country. We want to establish a local authority with which the people can identify and to which they can give their loyalty. I believe that the single-tier approach is the best way to remove the duplication, confusion and remoteness of local government that prevents such identification and loyalty now.
I agree that local authorities should represent a local, democratic voice. I believe that that will develop through the kind of single-tier, all-purpose authorities that we are contemplating.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of an all-in approach. Any aspect that is not specifically mentioned in the consultation

paper on which he feels it is important to submit views will be welcome, either during this consultation process or later when we have refined our views more specifically. That would include the question of election, on which he touched.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that, far from being inflexible, we are anxious to have an extended consultation process during which we shall take serious cognisance of all submissions.

Mr. Robert Hughes: In his statement the Secretary of State said that he was not prepared to debase local government. Does he realise that that comes ill from him when his Government have denigrated local government at almost every stage since they took office in 1979? If he genuinely wants proper consultations, why is he not prepared to have a proper, independent commission, as there is no way in which we can trust the Government, who made such a botch of the poll tax? Given the hostility to local government, how can we be sure that there will be a proper, independent evaluation of the submissions from local government? If local government is to be restructured, why does he not consider it in the context of an elected Scottish assembly which can properly take account of the views of the people of Scotland?

Mr. Lang: I have already made it clear that a Scottish assembly would not make local government more local, but would centralise it. An assembly would take power and integrity from local government. It is absolutely untrue to say that we have denigrated local government. We have consistently sought to strengthen it. The move to a single tier of local government will create stronger, more free-standing and more integrated local authorities throughout Scotland.
On whether a commission is appropriate, I have said that I am willing to consider representations on what sort of advisory body we should look to for further advice later in the consultation process. I see no function now for a commission such as that which is being set up for England. The Labour party's proposals in that regard would be more convincing if I had heard one Member just once promise to set up any sort of advisory commission on its proposal for a Scottish assembly.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: During the last reorganisation of local government in Scotland I wrote a short book about how community councils might work. May I immodestly suggest to my right hon. Friend that it might repay him to have a quick look at it because some of the ideas remain valid? Speaking from the south-east of England, as I do now, it is tempting for many of us to welcome any device which would diminish the number of interventions from Scottish Members in this place, but I welcome my right hon. Friend's resistance to the creation of a tax-raising assembly.
I was glad to hear him say firmly—I hope he will repeat it—that the principles that he is applying in Scotland do not necessarily apply throughout the United Kingdom. In Kent, in particular, there is a strong case for considering a two-tier local authority.

Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for my proposals for Scotland. I shall certainly seek to track down and learn from his writings on this matter, particularly given his former distinguished career


in the Scottish Office. I appreciate that the circumstances of Kent are different from those of much of Scotland. I agree that what is important is that we find the right solution for each part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Norman Hogg: Does the Secretary of State realise that no amount of reshuffling the existing structure of local government will make the Conservative party acceptable to the Scottish people? Does he agree that a commission of inquiry would be appropriate because it could take account of the views of the people, the councillors who run the existing local government structure, and the many who work for local government? Why does he not seek a consensus? Is it that consensus is not part of the language of Majorism?

Mr. Lang: I certainly seek a consensus—a consensus behind the proposals that I am offering to the House today. As we have the support of the Labour Front Bench, I believe that we have the makings of a consensus for a single tier of all-purpose authorities. We are consulting widely. We are sending the consultation paper to Scottish Members, political parties, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, public bodies, trade unions, public agencies, industrial and commercial bodies, churches, professional bodies and others. I look forward to receiving their views and those of individuals and other bodies.

Mr. Alexander Eadie: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that his arguments are weakened because he has been a member of a Government who for the past 12 years have been openly hostile to local government and local democracy? Although he has told the House that he wants to have the maximum consultation—we accept that—does not he realise that the Scottish people do not trust him and his party? They believe that any form of local government to emerge would be gerrymandered. The way to overcome that difficulty is to have an independent inquiry to make recommendations on the future structure of local government in Scotland.

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman should not judge the Conservative party by the record of the Labour Government in the late 1970s, which gerrymandered the parliamentary constituency boundaries. We shall consult openly, freely and extensively, and take account of recommendations to obtain the best system that will be durable and will be good for Scotland for many years to come.

Sir David Steel: The Scottish Conservatives and the Scottish nationalists decided to opt out of the work of the Scottish Constitutional Convention. They seem to be opting out of the work of the House of Commons as none of them is present to participate in this discussion.
Why has the Secretary of State thought it necessary to take a side swipe at the proposals of the Scottish Constitutional Convention? From the tone of his statement, I infer that no legislation on this matter will be introduced before the next election. After that, it would be much more sensible to remit the matter to a Scottish parliament.

Mr. Lang: Far from taking a side swipe at the Scottish Constitutional Convention, I never mentioned it. I do not

regard it as a body that could be a valuable source of advice for this exercise. Its main concern seems to be to represent the interests of the Labour party and to string along a few Liberal Members with loose talk about proportional representation.
The right hon. Gentleman is right. We do not plan to rush the legislation. It will take a few years to legislate and to get the systems up and running. That is right, because it is important that the system should stand the test of time.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: With regard to paragraph 21 of the consultative paper, if the majority of Scots are opposed to compulsory competitive tendering, will the Secretary of State drop that proposal from the Scottish legislation? If not, what is the point of consulting anyone about anything if he refuses to listen to the voices?
Considering the low level of representation of women in Scottish local government, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us which women's organisations he intends to consult about the proposals? If he had gone through the routine list of organisations, he would have observed that none represents even a majority of women, although there are women on particular groups such as the trade unions. I would appreciate it if he would widen his ideas about consultation.

Mr. Lang: If the hon. Lady suggests specific women's organisations, I shall be willing to consider them. They may fall under the headings that I described. She answered her own question by pointing out that women are on many of the bodies. Indeed, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities is led by a woman.
On competitive tendering, we intend to weigh the submissions that we receive and not just count them.

Mr. Tom Clarke: The timetable for consultations ends in October. What timetable do the Government have in mind for implementing their proposals? Why does the Secretary of State have so little faith in the proposals, given that there is probably wide acceptance of the case for single-tier local government? Why will he not have an independent commission? Why does the consultative paper hide behind the Wheatley commission and the Stodart committee? I was a member of the Stodart committee, and I remind the Secretary of State of its limited remit. For example, we were prevented from making a recommendation on the excellent evidence that we received from Rutherglen and Cambuslang. They could not understand why they were part of the Glasgow district, yet other areas, such as Eastwood and Bearsden, had autonomy.
Does the Secretary of State fear the response of the Scottish people? Why is he so blinkered about Europe? Why is the review separate from the review of local government finance? Does he accept that, if he is prepared to push ahead with Government thinking and disregard overwhelming Scottish opinion, that will enhance and not reduce the case for a Scottish parliament?

Mr. Lang: I do not accept that the case for a Scottish assembly would be enhanced. One reason why we are contemplating the abolition of some of the larger local authorities is their remoteness. We would not abolish Strathclyde, which covers half the country, to reduce remoteness and then create another body that covered the whole country.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the terms of reference of the Stodart committee were limited and restrictive. Nevertheless, much useful work was done, which remains open to us. The work of the Wheatley commission is also available to us. We can examine and scrutinise the building blocks that it established.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the timetable. I do not want to be held firmly to a timetable, because events can alter it, but we contemplate introducing legislation in the 1993–94 Session and the new system being up and running by 1996.

Mr. Mike Watson: Why is the Secretary of State afraid of an independent commission? He mentioned in his statement the Wheatley commission of 1969, which produced the proposals for local government that we have today. Is he afraid that if he were to establish a commission he would be obliged to pack it with placemen and placewomen to ensure that he achieved the result that he wanted, as he had to do with the health boards and college governors in recent years?
Is it not sheer hypocrisy for the Secretary of State to talk in his statement and in the booklet about accountability when he and his Front-Bench colleagues are not accountable to the people of Scotland? The Conservatives have been flatly rejected in general elections for the past 36 years. Accountability exists in Scottish local government and is not one of the reasons for moving to a unitary authority.

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the nature of the proposals south of the border. The commission would be an advisory body, and its recommendations would not be binding on the Government. The hon. Gentleman referred to advisory bodies and the advice that we may need as we proceed to the more detailed proposals. We shall consider that nearer the time, and I shall be open to suggestions.
On accountability, I believe that single-tier, all-purpose local authorities create stronger, more direct accountability than the present diffuse system of two-tier authorities that are remote and duplicate and confuse the source of services.

Mr. Harry Ewing: The Secretary of State has a brass neck talking about debasing local government after the damage that he has done in his present position as Secretary of State and previously as Minister of State responsible for local government finance. The relationship between local authorities and central Government in Scotland has never been worse than it is now.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that no argument could convince him of the need for a Scottish assembly or a Scottish parliament because he does not have faith in the people of Scotland to govern themselves and run their own affairs? Will he confirm that, although his statement is technically right, the new system of local government that came into being in 1975 was based on the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 introduced by the Conservative Government of 1970–74?
Much of what the Secretary of State is proposing today was proposed by my former colleagues, such as Bruce Milian. In Committee, he made it clear that Strathclyde was too big, and he submitted an amendment to divide it into four sub-regions. That amendment was swept aside by the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), who was

the junior Minister on the Committee. The local authority variation introduced by the late John Mackintosh was also contemptuously swept aside by the right hon. Member for Ayr. It comes ill from a Tory Government to criticise Scottish local government in that way.
May I ask the Secretary of State—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman seems to be engaging in a debate. I am told that the matter will be discussed in the Scottish Grand Committee tomorrow; that will provide the hon. Gentleman with the opportunity that he wants. He has been on his feet a long time, and I think that he has probably asked his question already.

Mr. Ewing: I simply ask the Secretary of State for a commitment that he will not, in any circumstances, further reduce the number of local councillors in Scotland, whatever system emerges. Local government becomes less local as a result of such action. That is what happened following the reorganisation in which the number of councillors was halved.

Mr. Lang: I look forward to hearing part two of the hon. Gentleman's speech either tomorrow or on Thursday.
I am not willing to give the hon. Gentleman any commitment about the number of councillors, especially before the start of the consultation about that very matter.
As for what the hon. Gentleman said about the Government's relations with local authorities, his memory must be defective, or at least selective. I recall the relationship between the last Labour Government and local government, and the powers that that Government used to control it. I also recall their dramatic cuts in rate support grant.

Mr. James Wallace: As the Secretary of State will know, the existing single-tier authorities in the islands were examined by the Montgomery committee. The committee recommended that the opportunity, whenever it presented itself, to extend, consolidate and develop the powers of the islands councils should be taken. Why has the Secretary of State failed to take that opportunity in the document?

Mr. Lang: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised the question of the islands councils. They are examples of single-tier, all-purpose authorities, and they have worked extremely effectively, even in areas with remarkably small populations. Of course we shall want to consider in our review the power and structure of the existing islands councils. If any change is deemed appropriate, the hon. Gentleman and others from the islands will doubtless make submissions, which we shall consider.

Mr. William McKelvey: I understand why the Secretary of State does not want an independent commission to look into the matter: he is not interested in a democratic investigation of the governing of Scotland. But why does he not give his reasons for not considering the Scottish convention's views to be widely representative? I assume that his invitations will be along broadly the same lines as those that have already been sent out by the convention.
Does the right hon. Gentleman really expect the people of Scotland to believe that he will look fairly and squarely at the matter when the present Government have not the guile or, indeed, the will to establish a Scottish Select Committee?

Mr. Lang: If the hon. Gentleman's idea of an independent, impartial and sound advisory committee is the so-called, self-styled constitutional convention, my first instincts against such a body clearly were right.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: The Secretary of State said that he would not introduce legislation until 1993. May I point out that the exercise is, in every sense of the word, academic, as he will not be in office then?
I say this with sincere regret, but I do not trust the right hon. Gentleman when he talks about genuine consultations. The Government refuse to engage in genuine consultations with interested parties other than those led by card-carrying Conservatives.
Let me also point out to the Secretary of State—and, perhaps more importantly, to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar)—that Inverclyde district council, as it is now constituted, would make an excellent single-tier authority. Social work departments should be part of such councils rather than being given over to specialist agencies. As I have said, however, it is all academic, because that old job lot will be swept away at the next general election.

Mr. Lang: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman, at least, is confident that his party will win the next election; he is the first Opposition Member to say so today. Nevertheless, even he felt it necessary to hedge his bets by offering his contribution to the consultation process. I assure him that that consultation will be genuine. I welcome his suggestions, which are positive and constructive, and I shall ensure that they are taken into account in the consultation process.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Will the Secretary of State admit that his predecessor, Lord Campbell of Croy, imposed the two-tier system of Scottish local government, which, as the right hon . Gentleman has said, has not stood the test of time? Does he accept that this Parliament must not be given another opportunity to make a dog's breakfast of local government in Scotland? If there is one tier of government that needs to be democratised, it is his Department. The only way in which we can secure a satisfactory local government structure is to have a directly elected Scottish parliament to legislate for the people of Scotland.

Mr. Lang: My noble Friend Lord Campbell of Croy did not impose the present system; Parliament decided on, and legislated for, that system.
I note that the hon. Gentleman considers that the system that was imposed—and has not stood the test of time—was proposed by a royal commission. That is the kind of commission that the Opposition seem keen to employ this time.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Secretary of State will know from the accompanying map, table and documents that north-east Fife occupies more than half the land mass of Fife, yet contains only about one fifth of the population. Does he accept that those factors give the local community a distinctive character, enhanced by the fact that the parliamentary constituency has precisely the same boundaries as the district council? May we take it—especially as the Secretary of State has

referred with approval to the achievements of the islands councils—that his mind will not be closed to the possibility of north-east Fife's having its own single-tier authority?

Mr. Lang: My mind is certainly not closed. I hope that, at the beginning of a consultation period, that comes as no surprise to the hon. and learned Gentleman. A number of the suggestions that he has made should indeed form part of a long-term consultation process.

Mr. Thomas McAvoy: As the Secretary of State will know, I would much prefer to deal with the reconstruction of Scottish local government in the context of a Scottish assembly. Does he realise that this process gives him the opportunity to right a wrong perpetrated by the Conservative Government in 1973, which has already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke)? I refer to the loss of the local councils in Cambuslang and Rutherglen, and their incorporation in Glasgow district council.
Paragraph 19·4 of the consultation paper says that local councils
should reflect local loyalties and allegiances and be truly representative of them.
If that means anything, surely what it logically means is the establishment of a one-tier authority for Cambuslang and Rutherglen. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will eventually recommend that, and will not take the advice of any civil service bureaucracy in the Scottish Office.

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman seems keen to join those who are intent on deriding the advisory commission that led to the creation of the present system when these matters were last considered. I note the case that he has made from Cambuslang and Rutherglen, and that too will be borne in mind as part of the consultation process.

Mr. Gavin Strang: Surely a Government who have transferred local power to the centre, destroyed the financial base of local government and intervened to prevent local councils from implementing the policies on which they were elected—as the Government did in Lothian only a few weeks ago—are quite unfit to embark on such consultation. In the circumstances, is not asking a Tory Secretary of State to present a new scheme for Scottish local government a bit like asking Saddam Hussein to present a charter for independent, self-governing countries in the middle east?
To what extent has the Secretary of State prejudged the position? What, for example, is the basis of the reports that he has already decided that he wants the four major Scottish cities to have separate all-purpose authorities?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman's idea of impartiality is that something can be fair and impartial only if it is Labour controlled. I do not find his comments of particular value as part of the consultation process.
I should prefer all-purpose unitary authorities in the cities, but the outcome of the consultation process remains to be seen. We shall also see how the boundaries will be drawn and what account is taken of the important interest of areas around the cities, which have strong local loyalties.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does not the Secretary of State accept that, if the effectiveness of local government in Scotland is to be enhanced by a new structure, it must rest on the assent of all the political parties in Scotland and not just of his


minority party? Therefore, how does he propose to approach the question of consultation? Will he also recognise that, if he drains away authority from local government to some of the bodies described in paragraph 13 of his document—major, public sector, executive authorities—we shall not be able to strengthen the effectiveness of local government without considering its functions, particularly the functions of those powerful, unaccountable executive authorities?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to identify functions as an important component of local government reform. We have made it clear throughout that we are approaching the exercise with a view to considering the funding, functions and structure of local government. Indeed, the document refers extensively to the functions of local government. We shall consult, widely and I have listed the bodies to which we shall send the consultation document. I expect that much interest will be expressed by other bodies and individuals and by the political parties. If the hon. Gentleman suggests that the Liberal Democrats should have a veto on any change of local government, that is not acceptable.

Mr. Alistair Darling: Will the Secretary of State deal with the problem that some of the regional council functions do not readily lend themselves to sub-division? For example, there are 11 directors of education. Is it proposed that they should be sub-divided into 23 or 56 directors of education? The alternative is to have a Scottish parliament. Otherwise, power will be increasingly concentrated in the hands of the Secretary of State, joint boards or quangos stuffed with his supporters. That cannot be good for the democratic process and does not add to accountability.
Unless the Secretary of State deals with those problems and the need for a Scottish parliament, his proposals will join those that he has made over the past 12 years and will find themselves in the bucket.

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman underlines the fact that function and structure are related. According to the size of structure, we shall have to consider the nature of functions and how they are handled. I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that a Scottish assembly would solve the problems of local government. It would centralise power instead of keeping it at a local level, devolved to new, strong, all-purpose, single-tier local authorities.

Mr. George Foulkes: Is the Secretary of State aware that, although we are used to Scottish statements meekly following English statements on the same subject, this is the first time that a Scottish statement has meekly followed a Welsh statement? Not only has it caught the nationalists napping but there are no Tory Back Benchers from Scotland present.
Does the Secretary of State recognise the dilemmas that he is facing? In his statement he said that he favours a single-tier system, based on the previous county boundaries. I understand the logic of that, and there is a strong lobby for it in Ayrshire. However, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), will tell him that, when he visited Cumnock,

there was a strong lobby for Cumnock and Doon Valley to become a single-tier, all-purpose authority. We have also heard that Inverclyde—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's question must relate to the Secretary of State's statement. His question refers to a subject that will be debated tomorrow.

Mr. Foulkes: I am about to finish my question, Mr. Speaker. We have also heard that Inverclyde, north-east Fife and Rutherglen and Cambuslang wish to be single-tier, all-purpose authorities. If that happens, there will be 56 directors of education, social work, planning and highways. Therefore, there is an incompatibility between making councils more local and making them efficient. Would it not be better, for the Secretary of State's safety, to leave the recommendations to an independent commission rather than have him taking unpopular decisions, especially affecting Galloway and Upper Nithsdale?

Mr. Lang: I am delighted that we are engaging the hon. Gentleman's considerable intellect in these issues, and I look forward to his considered submission during the consultation process.
As for my statement following a Welsh statement, I found the Welsh statement educational. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales made it clear that the Welsh Office sees no need for an advisory commission and will have no truck with a Welsh assembly.

Mr. Frank Doran: There is clearly a strong case for a unitary authority, but if the Secretary of State is given the opportunity to implement his proposals, will he pay heed to the strategic importance of the regional councils? Will he pay particular regard to the tremendous work of Grampian regional council to provide essential support for the infrastructure of the oil industry, which has brought great benefit to the country in the past few years? It is unlikely that the five district authorities that may become unitary authorities will be able to provide that degree of strategic support.

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman makes an effective point in support of regional councils, especially Grampian. Clearly, that must be taken into account. I see that we are in for a fertile, positive and constructive period of consultation.

Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the absence of the entire membership of the Tory Back Benches and the Scottish National party is due to the fact that they are elsewhere, setting up an alternative Scottish convention to be known henceforth as the Blairgowrie set?
The statement allows for no independent commission. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Stodart committee went out into the country and listened to people before making its recommendations on the delineation between layers of authority? When the Montgomery committee went out into the country and listened to people in the islands, it moderated and changed its views and made a far better report as a result.
Why, when this far more important exercise is being set up, is the Secretary of State not prepared to send an independent team to every part of Scotland to listen to what people have to say and to learn, according to regional and geographic variations? That cannot be done by a


written exercise. Is he not prepared to learn because he is afraid that his prejudices might be interfered with? Why will he, uniquely, reduce democracy to the pillar box and shredder?

Mr. Lang: I have already made it clear that, as the consideration of the options becomes narrower and more detailed, if it becomes appropriate to have an advisory body I shall consider that possibility. The Stodart and Montgomery committees were given narrow, specific and detailed remits. We are concerned with the broad principles of the reform of local government. I am glad that they have had such an underlying welcome from Opposition Members. I believe that they will commend themselves in the country.

Points of Order

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On Wednesday of last week the Government were defeated on an important vote in European Standing Committee B on the question of patent terms for medicines. The Hansard report of the Committee's proceedings shows that the Government's motion, subsequently amended on a vote, was resolved. In view of the controversy over the reporting of European Standing Committees on other issues, may we be assured that the resolution as passed in Committee will be presented to the House and that the Hansard report will be corrected?

Mr. Speaker: I have not had notice of this, but does the hon. Gentleman allege that Hansard has misreported what happened?

Mr. Wigley: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Although Hansard correctly reports that the amendment was carried, it then says that the original motion was resolved. Other hon. Members who were present will testify to the fact that that did not happen.

Mr. Speaker: I should like to look into that matter before I make a ruling on it.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As a member of the Committee, I can confirm that the Government's motion was amended by a vote and that the motion, as amended, was carried by the Committee. The Official Report does not mention that.

Mr. Speaker: I shall look into the matter and be in communication with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Today, we have had a bit of Welsh and a bit of Scottish, and I hope to further the entente cordiale by introducing a bit of French. Apparently, the French Prime Minister has sought to insult the virility of the British male because when she was last in London she did not receive enough admiring glances. I sought to table a motion—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members' virility is not a matter for me.

Mr. Marlow: I sought to table a motion explaining that hon. Members do not fancy elderly French women, but I was told that that was out of order. How can the House stand up for half the British population when it is insulted like that?

Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman's motion was probably turned down by the Table Office as being "tendered in a spirit of mockery"—which is not allowed.

Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. First, may I apologise on behalf of myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) for going on a bit. In my own defence, may I say that my hon. Friend was a lot worse than me.
My point of order is this. You, Mr. Speaker, are always generous during statements. If, at the end of the statement, some right hon. and hon. Members have not caught your


eye, you make it clear that you have noticed that and that, in future, if the subject is raised again, you will keep that fact in mind. As a good crawler, I have always appreciated that during your Speakership, Mr. Speaker. However, you will have noticed that during our exchanges today no Scottish Tory Back Benchers or Scottish National party Members have been present. In order to protect you, Mr. Speaker, may I draw to your attention that, in future, you should not allow absent brethren—

Mr. Norman Hogg: Or sisters.

Mr. Ewing: —or sisters, to prevail upon you saying that they were not called during today's exchanges on the statement and thus try to persuade you to call them as a favour. If they are absent today, you should score them off your list.

Mr. Speaker: I think that that is a hypothetical matter. I bear in mind all kinds of things, one of which is the regularity with which hon. Members come into the Chamber. It is true that, the more frequently Members are present, the more likely they are to be called.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: On a point of order arising out of Overseas Development Questions. I have given the Minister for Overseas Development notice of what I propose to say, Mr. Speaker.
It is totally inadequate for the Minister to give the House misleading statements on the position of Kurdish refugees. During the Gulf war, the Government made a statement almost every day about the conduct of the war. In the aftermath of the war, the Government have a responsibility to make statements to the House on what is happening to the Kurdish refugees. Much Government aid and individual help has been invested in solving that problem, but we have had no statement from the Government on the withdrawal, or the proposed withdrawal, of British and allied troops from Kurdistan. Those refugees are in a parlous position, and it is incumbent on the Government to make a proper statement to the House instead of dealing with the crisis in two minutes of Overseas Development Questions.

Mr. David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is increasing anxiety about what the position would be once the allied troops had left. I have been trying to find out, and perhaps you, Mr. Speaker, can advise me, about the allies' precise intentions. Are they to leave by a certain date? Will you, Mr. Speaker, bear in mind that when Foreign Office Questions are taken—I believe, a week on Wednesday—for obvious reasons there will be few opportunities for Back Benchers to be called to press the Minister? In what circumstances would the Minister, whether the Foreign Secretary or the Defence Secretary, come to the House to tell us precisely what the allies will do? Are they going to leave, and, if so, what sort of safety and security would the Kurds have, bearing in mind that a notorious criminal remains in power in Baghdad?

Mr. Speaker: I do not know whether the hon. Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) were here for business questions last Thursday when the Leader of the House said that he was giving careful consideration to whether there should be a debate on that subject.
The answer that the hon. Member for Cynon Valley received to her question on overseas matters today was a long one and it caused the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) to say from a sedentary position that the Minister was making a statement. As he made that comment from a sedentary position, it will not be reported in Hansard, but it was certainly a long answer.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the Question on the three motions relating to statutory instruments.

Ordered,
That the Farm Diversification Grant (Variation) (No. 2) Scheme 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 1339) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Farm and Conservation Grant (Variation) Scheme 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 1338) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Farm and Conservation Grant Regulations 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Patnick]

Orders of the Day — Armed Forces (Re-committed) Bill

Considered in Committee.

[MR. HAROLD WALKER in the Chair.]

Clause 1

CONTINUANCE OF SERVICES ACTS

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 8, leave out '31st August 1991' and insert '31st December 1991'.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will he convenient to take Government amendment No. 2.

Mr. Hamilton: Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are not substantive. The service discipline Acts will expire on 31 August 1991 unless they are continued in force before then by primary legislation or by Order in Council. As is usual, clause 1 of the Bill has been drafted to provide for the Acts to continue in force for a period of five years from 31 August 1991. That assumes, however, that the Bill will receive Royal Assent before that date which effectively means before the start of the summer recess. While I have every expectation that this will be the case, as we are now past the middle of June, I think that it is prudent to provide for the contingency that Royal Assent might come at a later date so there is no possibility of the Acts expiring in August without having been renewed. To achieve this a draft Order in Council has been laid which I hope will be approved shortly and which provides for the Acts to continue in force from 31 August until 31 December 1991. The amendment to clause I simply reflects the change of date on which the Acts would otherwise expire.
Amendment No. 2 makes a corresponding deferment of the date of repeal of section I of the Armed Forces Act 1986. That is necessary because the Order in Council extending the expiry date of the service discipline Acts to 31 December 1991 is made under that section and it therefore cannot be repealed before that date.

Dr. John Reid: We have no objection to the amendment and do not wish to be obstructive, but we should like to remind the Minister of the complex nature of the Bill. As he knows, the Bill is a series of amendments to the service discipline Acts. In Committee, further amendments to those amendments were tabled as a result of late amendments to the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Today, we find that there are amendments to the amendments to the amendments to the service discipline Acts and, while we do not object to those amendments, if the Government are still in power in five years' time, it would be easier if all four series of amendments could be tabled at the same time.

Mr. Hamilton: We shall probably still be in power in five years' time. The position has arisen because there has been some delay in bringing the Bill before the House. If

it had been brought forward earlier in the parliamentary timetable, we would not have had to table the amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

YOUNG OFFENDERS: CUSTODIAL SENTENCES

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Dr. Reid: We do not intend to oppose this clause just for the sake of opposing it. There was full debate in Committee, and I take this opportunity to express our gratitude for the manner in which Government Members worked with the Opposition in pursuing many of the points that were made.
Clauses 2 to 5 deal mainly with custodial sentences on young service offenders, and incorporate advances made in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 in protecting young people, both before a verdict is given and after the offence has been proven.
We welcome the spirit and the detail of the clauses, which in civilian life have resulted in a reduction of custodial sentencing of young people, and have achieved a balance between giving good guidance to courts martial and standing civilian courts, while allowing both to exercise discretion.
We think it proper that an obligation should be placed on military courts, as it is on their civilian counterparts, to explain as fully as possible to young offenders why a particular sentence is being passed. We regard the clauses as a constructive move forward in the discipline Acts and have no hesitation in supporting them.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. It is certainly the case that we are trying to tie in armed forces legislation with that which applies in civilian life. The House has already legislated in respect of offences committed by young people, and we are attempting to bring the sentencing provisions in the armed forces more into line with that.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

STOPPAGES UNDER THE 1955 ACTS: PERSONAL INJURIES AND LIMITS

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Dr. Reid: We welcome these helpful amendments to the service discipline Acts, and in particular the emphasis that is placed on the concept and practice of awarding compensation to the victims of criminal assault. We welcome also the precedent of giving compensation—be it of a fiscal or financial nature—precedence over fines imposed by courts martial or by civilian courts where financial circumstances prevent the offender from paying both. Again, we do not oppose the clause.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments, and I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 8 to 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14

DEDUCTIONS FROM PAY IN RESPECT OF LIABILITIES FOR MAINTENANCE: THE 1955 Acrs

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I had hoped to serve as a member of the Select Committee that considered the Bill, but for reasons best known to itself, the Whips' Office did not invite me to do so. I want to ask the Minister questions on clauses 14 and 15, which are concerned with deductions from pay in respect of maintenance liabilities.
Are clauses 14 and 15 compatible with the provisions of the Child Support Bill? I remind the Minister that clause 1 of that Bill sets out the duty of parents to maintain those of their children who are qualified children for the purposes of the Bill. It provides that where a parent is not living with a child, that duty is to be considered discharged by the making of periodic payments determined in accordance with the Bill's provisions.
Clause 4 of the Child Support Bill establishes the right of a person either having the care of a child or the absent parent to apply to the Secretary of State for a maintenance assessment. On Second Reading of the Child Support Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) asked the Secretary of State for Social Services:
Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether the Army Acts lay down that a commanding officer of a serving soldier has the right to set aside a court maintenance order if he thinks that the man concerned does not have enough income to meet it?
Is the Secretary of State aware that I have been dealing with a constituency case in which the sheriff court in Falkirk made a child maintenance order but, because the absent parent happens to be a serving soldier, his commanding officer has time and again set aside the court order, and there is nothing that the mother of the two children concerned can do about it?"—[Official Report, 4 June 1991; Vol. 192, c. 187.]
If that is the case, that is an appalling state of affairs. Can the Minister confirm that clauses 14 and 15 of the Armed Forces Bill are compatible with the legal provisions of the Child Support Bill?

Mr. Archie Hamilton: The purpose of clause 14 is to take into account the changes in the powers of courts to make orders for the financial relief of spouses and children, including where the parents were not married to each other.
It is in the nature of service pay that it may not be attached. Courts are therefore unable to make orders preventing a service man from receiving his pay arid for it to be paid to another person. However, the 19:55 Acts provide for compulsory deductions to be made from a service man's pay on the authorisation of the defence council or an officer authorised by it, where a maintenance order has been made by a court, including one in Her Majesty's dominions outside the United Kingdom.
In recent years, there have been a number of significant changes in civil law—most notably, the Family Law Reform Act 1987, which abolished the concept of illegitimacy in English law; the concept of "child of the family", most recently revised in the Children Act 1989;

and other provisions of that Act which re-enacted and amended existing provisions on orders for financial relief. All have affected the powers of courts to make orders, with the result that there is a mismatch between those powers and the powers of the defence council to order deductions from pay. The amendments to section 150 of the 1955 Acts ensure that the powers of the defence council are consistent with the powers of courts to make orders.
Although the concept of illegitimacy has gone from English and Scottish law, it still exists in law in Northern Ireland—and possibly in other countries whose courts' orders would be covered by the section. In order to ensure that the provisions now work for all the relevant countries in respect of illegitimate children, clause 14 makes clear that, for the purposes of the provision, a child is covered whether or not the parents are or have been married to each other. The clause therefore has to make clear also that that sort of dictionary definition in no way affects the operation of the enactments in England and Scotland which abolish the concept of illegitimacy.
In the same Session, the Government are introducing legislation to provide for a child support agency, which will make assessments of maintenance in all cases where the claiming parent is on benefit. Provisions covering service parents will be included in that legislation to ensure that they are neither advantaged nor disadvantaged by virtue of their service.
Subsection (5) amends the provision which empowers the defence council or an officer authorised by it to make deductions from service pay where it is satisfied that the service man or woman is failing to maintain his wife or any child of his.
There is doubt that the expression "any child of his" covers illegitimate children. Though there has been conflicting legal advice on that aspect over the years, both the Army and Air Force authorities have made deductions in respect of such children where paternity has been established and admitted. The amendment adds a new subsection to make the position clear for the future—that children of parents who are, or were not, married to each other are included in the provision. By construing the subsection as if it had always been in the Act, the amendment provides retrospective authority for deductions previously made from service pay under the section in respect of illegitimate children. I can therefore reassure the hon. Gentleman that the provisions of the Bill are compatible with legislation that has already been passed.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 15 and 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill

Clause 17

ABOLITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: I oppose the clause and urge the Committee to vote against it. I accept at once that this is a most serious matter and I do not reject the clause lightly or without thorough consideration. I am advised that its drafting is defective and that the clause would not achieve what it seeks to achieve, although that is not my main reason for objecting to it.
5.30 pm
The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) was right in December during debate on amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill in relation to the death penalty in civil law when he said that the arguments are different as far as service offences are concerned. Essentially, we are now dealing with offences committed in time of war. The fundamental issue here is whether there should be available to service courts the ultimate sanction for action that could imperil the lives of other service men and women who are doing their duty in defending the interests of the state, undermine the ability of the armed forces and ultimately threaten the existence of the state itself.
The clause seeks to remove that penalty from those five offences under the service discipline Acts which carry a maximum, although not mandatory, sentence of death. Those offences are: serious misconduct in action; communicating with the enemy, or furnishing supplies, or aiding the enemy having been captured; obstructing operations or giving false air signals; mutiny or incitement to mutiny; and failure to suppress a mutiny.
With the exception of mutiny and incitement to mutiny, the death sentence may be passed only when the offences are committed with intent to assist the enemy. In the case of mutiny and incitement to mutiny, the death penalty is available only where the object or one of the objects of the mutiny is the refusal or avoidance of any duty or service against the enemy or impeding the performance of any such duty or service.
We should be quite clear that we are concerned here with actions that could ultimately threaten the very existence of the state. In that respect they can be seen as akin to treason for which the death penalty is still mandatory. Until such time as Parliament agrees any change to that law, it would be premature, to say the least, to consider removing the death penalty for the service offences to which I have referred.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: By what means would the death penalty be carried out?

Mr. Hamilton: It would happen only in war and I think that we are saying that it would be a field offence and likely to be carried out by firing squad.
It remains our policy that the death penalty would not be carried out in peacetime. The sentence can be imposed only by a court martial, and there are considerable safeguards governing its use.
Some people have implied that retaining the death penalty in some way casts a slur on the professionalism and dedication of service men and women. The opposite is true. We must admit the possibility of treachery, however remote and for whatever motive, by those whose deliberate actions would make the death of other service men at enemy hands more likely. I am not persuaded that circumstances outweigh our responsibility to protect, as far as possible, young men who are prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice defending others from tyranny, as some have done all too recently in the Gulf.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins: Will my right hon. Friend spell out the safeguards that he mentioned?

Mr. Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend asking about safeguards in peacetime?

Mr. Higgins: My right hon. Friend spoke about some safeguards, but I am not sure about what they are and in what context they apply.

Mr. Hamilton: I think that we are saying that if a court martial in peacetime passed a death sentence it would not be upheld by the Secretary of State. It is only in wartime that there is any chance of a death sentence being passed. It is not mandatory and its passing in wartime would, therefore, be up to the court. That is the only time when such a sentence would be likely to be upheld.

Mr. Denzil Davies: The right hon. Gentleman speaks about peacetime. Is he speaking about offences committed in wartime that are tried in peacetime, or does he mean offences that are committed in peacetime? When he speaks about wartime, is he relying on a very narrow definition of war?

Mr. Hamilton: The definition of war is when our forces are in conflict with the enemy. It is conceivable that if a capital offence had occurred in the Gulf conflict it would be being tried now. The time at which an offence is committed would determine whether it had been committed in wartime.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Does the Minister agree that no such penalty could be imposed in relation to Northern Ireland?

Mr. Hamilton: We are quite clear that what is happening in Northern Ireland will not be included in any definition of wartime. We do not regard the activities of the Army in Northern Ireland as wartime activities.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Surely the legislation does not say that. Northern Ireland is covered by the legislation, in which armed conflict is defined as taking place in wartime.

Mr. Hamilton: I give the right hon. Gentleman the undertaking that if the death penalty were passed for an offence committed in Northern Ireland the Secretary of State would use his discretion and would not allow the sentence to be carried out.

Mr. Higgins: I am sorry for persisting but I should like further clarification. My right hon. Friend says that the Secretary of State would overrule a death sentence passed in peacetime. If that will always be the case, why not legislate to the effect that such a sentence will not be imposed in peacetime?

Mr. Hamilton: At such a time we would not expect a court martial to impose that sentence. I suppose that it is open to the court martial to pass such a sentence, although strong advice would be given to it not to do so. In peacetime such a sentence would be overruled by the Secretary of State.

Mr. Simon Burns: Am I right in saying that there was no declaration of war before the Falklands conflict although we were clearly at war with Argentina? Under this legislation, what would have happened at that time if any offences had occurred?

Mr. Hamilton: I do not think that a declaration of war is necessary to trigger the legislation. It is a matter of being in armed conflict and therefore the Gulf war, over which we did not declare war either, and the Falklands conflict, would apply.

Mr. Julian Brazier: Perhaps I can assist the Committee. The key issue is that many hon. Members, including some Opposition Members, accept that it is necessary for the sanction to remain in time of war. The legislation must be left vague because it is impossible to produce a clear definition of what is meant by being at war. Most of the major conflicts in which we have been involved since the second world war were not declared to be war. That is why the matter must be left to ministerial discretion.

Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend is exactly right to say that there is a great problem about defining war. We are clear about peace and peacetime activity, and in this case that includes Northern Ireland.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Minister is extremely generous in giving way on this important matter. The legislation is not vague; it is quite specific. However, the extent of the discretion that the Secretary of State would seek to exercise is vague. Am I right in deriving from what the Minister said that the Secretary of State's discretion would extend to determining whether what had occurred had happened in conditions which could legitimately be described as conflict, and thereafter would extend to determining whether the death penalty should be carried out? The discretion would be two-legged. First, it would be necessary to determine whether it was appropriate to exercise the discretion against the death penalty and, secondly, it would be necessary to determine whether in the particular case the death penalty should be carried out.

Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman is right. There is also the discretion of the court martial. As it is not mandatory on it to pass the death sentence, the court martial could decide that the offence did not merit the death sentence even though it took place at a time of war.

Dr. Godman: Will the Minister confirm that no member of the services serving in the Gulf conflict, given that he or she was a member of the United Nations force, could have been sentenced to death if found guilty of one of the charges?

Mr. Hamilton: We were not acting as a United Nations force, although we were acting under a United Nations resolution—the two are slightly different. Therefore, if somebody had committed one of the offences in the Gulf war, he could have been court martialled and the court martial could have passed the death sentence.
I am aware that some states, such as France, Germany, Denmark and Portugal, have abolished the death penalty for services offences. That is for them to decide. Others of our NATO allies, including the United States, Canada, Belgium and Italy, retain the death penalty. Therefore, there is no question of our being out of step with our allies on this matter. The retention of the death penalty has been given the most careful consideration within the services, and they are firmly of the view, which we support, that the death penalty should be available as a deterrent in a situation that involves armed operations, when acts of treachery could have serious implications for the outcome of an operation or war. Therefore, I must ask the Committee to oppose the clause.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: This is a difficult and anxious topic. Like some others, I start with a moral objection to

capital punishment. I have always believed that it was wrong to take the life of another and that it was as wrong for the state to do that as it was for an individual. However, I acknowledge that one has to examine whether the particular circumstances which obtain in the services would justify a departure from what, for me, is a matter of principle.
I listened to the Minister with interest. I believe that I do him no disservice if I conclude from what he said that, in his judgment, the continued existence of the death penalty is for its deterrent effect. I did not understand him to argue for retribution or any similar, outmoded justifications for punishment. Therefore, one has to ask oneself whether, in the context of a conflict, the existence of the death penalty would be a deterrent to someone who was contemplating embarking on an activity that might result in a court martial and a sentence of death. I am not satisfied— this is as much a matter of belief as anything because I doubt whether either side of the argument could obtain evidence in such clear and unequivocal terms as to satisfy the other—with the notion of deterrence.
I do not seek to detract from the importance and significance of the offences to which the death penalty still applies but I am by no means convinced, by what the Minister has said or by my experience in civilian law, that the death penalty has ever been, or is ever likely to act as, a deterrent. For that reason, I will vote for the clause. Uwe are engaged, as the report sets out as a matter of principle, in endeavouring to equate civilian with military law, then in this area we could, without any fear, cause the penalty both in civilian life and service life to be exactly and precisely the same. I cannot conceive that any prejudice to good order, discipline or anything else of that kind might be created were this clause not to stand part of the Bill.

Sir Anthony Grant: There is, as I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will recognise, a difference between offences such as those that we are debating and civil offences. It is possible that, without this sanction, members of the services could take the law into their own hands. There are examples of that having happened in previous conflicts. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman and the House will bear in mind that, in the heat of battle—something that some hon. Members have experienced—troops or others might exercise capital punishment without trial.

Mr. Campbell: That is a possibility, but we put weapons in the hands of troops on the basis that they are properly trained and led and that they will be responsible for their actions. I find it difficult to accept the idea that the absence of the death penalty might provoke troops to take the law into their own hands in repect of a comrade whom they felt had fallen below the high standards to which they were aspiring or which they had achieved.
We got some flavour of the difficulties that the law causes in application when the Minister dealt with the differences between peacetime and what he began by describing as wartime but went on—quite rightly because wartime implies a formal declaration of war—to describe as conflict. We know that nothing in the Bill distinguishes between one situation and the other. We know only that the penalty is available. As the Minister and I know, because of my intervention in his speech, the court martial has a discretion as to whether to impose the penalty. If it


does, the Secretary of State then has a discretion to determine whether the background against which the offence was committed constitutes peace or conflict. He then has a further discretion as to whether, in the circumstances of the case, the sentence should be confirmed and the execution take place.
All that imposes far too much discretion, first on the court martial and secondly on the Secretary of State. I believe that not because I do not think that Secretaries of State will not do their best to exercise that discretion in the most fair and judicial way possible but because I think that some cases will be very hard to decide, and that will make the exercise of the discretion extremely difficult. Like all discretions of this kind, as part of the Secretary of State's administrative responsibilities, it would be subject to no challenge.
The Bill, far from being useful in the way described in the report of the Select Committee, can lead to confusion. There is about it a lack of certainty that is inimical to the proper notion of a judicial system.
An issue such as this is necessarily one upon which people should exercise their own consciences. There will be a free vote for Liberal Democrats. I gather from the Minister's nodding head that the same is to apply to Government Back Benchers. I welcome that because it would be unfortunate if an issue such as this were to be determined not on the free and independent judgment of hon. Members, but on the notion that the contents of the Bill had to be either preserved or not.
It is difficult to achieve consistency in these matters, but it is an objective that the criminal law, whether based in civilian or in service life, should endeavour to achieve. It would be less than consistent if the House were not to accept that the clause should remain part of the Bill.

Dr. Reid: The Minister began his speech at 5·29 pm and, with five minutes of giving way, finished it ll minutes later. The debate tonight will probably take an hour or one and a half hours. Last Monday, we discussed the vexed problem of whether we should execute dogs. The House sat until 3 am, and we had speech after speech from Ministers and from Back-Bench Members. Tonight, we are discussing whether we should execute British service men and women. That is a sad reflection not only on the Government, but on the House.

Sir Anthony Grant: Anglo-Saxon attitudes.

Dr. Reid: It may, as the hon. Gentleman says, be a reflection of the Anglo-Saxon race. As a Celt, I do not want to comment on that.
The hon. Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) asked earlier how sentences were carried out. How sentences are carried out makes little difference. There is no glorious, moral and majestic way in which to execute anyone—far less anyone who has been prepared to offer his life for his country. However, as a matter of interest, the last execution arising out of the second world war, which was carried out on 4 January 1946 some months after even VJ day, was, according to the death certificate which I have, by the breaking of the vertebrae, which I take to mean hanging. There was not even the dignity of a field execution.
The question has raised some interest outside the House. On reflection, that is both understandable and

curious. It is understandable because we are dealing with a matter of life and death; it is curious because the Government have argued all along that the death penalty has not been handed down for any of the five capital military offences contained in the services Acts since the second world war. In other words, for almost half a century, we have not used the death penalty for a purely military offence.
Furthermore, as the Minister told us at some length, it has been and remains the express policy of the Ministry of Defence that the five offences should not carry the death penalty during peacetime. The Government have never explained adequately to me—or to other hon. Members, I presume—why the distinction is made and how it is supposed to operate. I welcome the distinction because I welcome the fact that the Government say that they will not use the death penalty in peacetime. I welcome that on humanitarian grounds, but I am slightly suspicious that the distinction is based on humanitarian grounds by the Government because on other issues they have not been renowned for being the most humanitarian of Governments.
I am confused by the Government's logic because they have never adequately explained the distinction between war and peace in the use of the death penalty, or the definition. The distinction cannot be a matter of deterrence, which was mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), as there is no logical reason why the death penalty should be a more effective deterrent in wartime than in peacetime. Indeed, the opposite is true, as has been illustrated by history and as was mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
The distinction cannot be a matter of justice, as wartime military courts cannot be assumed to be any less fallible than peacetime military courts. Indeed, given the conditions of war, the opposite is almost bound to be the case and it is almost inevitable that innocent individuals would stand more chance of being among those executed in war than among those executed in peacetime.
The distinction cannot be on the ground of equity. Those who argue that different standards must apply during wartime, as has been argued this evening, are, by virtue of their own argument, arguing that the sentence of execution should be related to the political circumstances in which the offence takes place and not to the offence itself.
Above all, the distinction cannot be on the ground of clarity. It has been amply illustrated in questions to and answers from the Minister, even at this early stage in the debate, that the precise difference between wartime and peacetime is completely unclear and it is completely unclear how the difference is to be defined and, just as importantly, by whom.
The Minister floundered to an extent. Without being light-hearted and without implying malevolence, I must say that he has given us a promise that is not worth the paper on which it is not written. Nothing has been defined on paper. His offer to us tonight is a bit like a cross between an offer from Don Corleone and an offer from Sir Keith Joseph. He is making us an offer that is difficult to refuse, but no one can understand it. That is not the basis on which to make life and death decisions.
The Minister's arguments in his short contribution should not be allowed to obscure the importance of the issue. There is no overpowering logic or rationale behind which supporters of the Minister's position can hide.


There is no self-evident case to put. The supporters of the Minister's position are duty bound out of obligation to the House, to themselves and to the armed services to explain and argue their case rather than just to walk into the Lobby on the assumption that the status quo is a self-evident argument. They must make up their own minds on the issue as a matter of individual conscience.
I am glad that the Minister nodded in response to an earlier question. I have been told that there will be a free vote tonight. If so, it will be a free vote on a three-line Whip. I am not sure of the distinction. I understand that there is a three-line Whip on hon. Members to turn up, but that they will then be free to vote as they see fit—unless, presumably, they are members of the Government, as the Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I take it that it will be a free vote. It will be up to the individual. That is certainly the case for the Opposition and I am glad to be reassured that it is the case for Conservative Members.
The simple fact on which every mind should be concentrated this evening is that there are still five offences, as outlined by the Minister, that carry the death penalty.

Mr. David Winnick: The question of a free vote is of great importance. Labour Members know that they have a free vote and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson has said that his colleagues have a free vote. Has the Minister confirmed that Conservative Members will have a free vote? We have heard rumours, but we cannot know what Whip they are on. I understand that they are on a two-line Whip on the clause. Will the Minister confirm that Conservative Members have a completely free vote?

Dr. Reid: I think that my hon. Friend is wrong and that Conservative Members are on a three-line Whip. However, I think that the Minister has assured me that the Government have found a formula for having a three-line Whip and a free vote. I will accept his reassurance on the matter and he may wish to explain the position.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: I am more than happy to clarify the position for the benefit of Opposition Members. The hon. Gentleman asked about our whipping arrangements this evening. The Chief Whip has demanded of us that we should attend the House, but when it comes to the vote on the death penalty there will be a free vote affecting all Conservative Members.

6 pm

Dr. Reid: I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance. I think that I understand the distinction between voting for the Bill as a whole and voting for the clause.
As I was saying, the simple fact on which every one of those free-voting minds should concentrate is that there are still five offences that carry the death penalty under military law. These have been outlined, and comprise serious misconduct in action, obstructing operations, mutiny or incitement to mutiny, failure to suppress a mutiny and assisting the enemy. As the Minister said, all of those, with the exception of mutiny or incitement to mutiny, require the intention to assist the enemy.
After considering the issue, the Committee voted by a majority to abolish the death penalty, which is why the clause is incorporated in the Bill before us tonight. I agree with that decision. In discussing the issue, I do not want to enter into a full debate about the relative merits of capital

punishment as a means of deterring crime or misdemeanour. That debate has been held twice during this Parliament alone, most recently on 17 December last, and on both occasions the House has made its view known by a convincing margin. I may say in passing that, during the debate on the merits or otherwise of the death penalty in civilian life, the argument has commonly been employed by those supporting the death penalty that one reason why Parliament should accept it is that there is overwhelming public support for it in civilian life. Despite that, Parliament has rejected the death penalty, and I would merely observe that that is one argument that cannot be employed tonight, because I do not believe that there is any such public demand for the death sentence as it applies to British service men and women.
It is as well to make it absolutely plain that there is no suggestion from anyone that the five offences outlined already should go unpunished—obviously not. They are serious offences and will continue to be treated as such, qualifying, even if the clause remains in the Bill, for sentences of long periods of imprisonment—possibly life imprisonment.

Dr. Godman: Will my hon. Friend confirm that there is a minimum age as regards the death penalty? I ask that because a number of Scots service men taking part in the Gulf conflict were aged under 18 years. I seek confirmation of the fact that, when the Committee debated the clause, there was some discussion of the minimum age.

Dr. Reid: The Committee spent some time considering the general question of the age at which young service men and women should be allowed to go into active service overseas. Recommendations are made in the report—although clearly they do not form part of our proceedings this evening. Nevertheless, problems could arise. There have been a number of relevant cases—particularly one famous case in civilian life. I cannot remember the names of the two young gentlemen involved, but one of them was certainly below the minimum age for execution—[HON. MEMBERS: "Craig and Bentley."] Yes, indeed. Unfortunately, the young gentleman was executed and, as hon. Members will know, there was considerable doubt surrounding the verdicts. The sort of problem to which my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) referred could, therefore, arise.
The point that I was making was that, even if the death penalty were abolished, as the clause now incorporated in the Bill suggests it should be, misdemeanours, crimes and breaches of discipline would still merit very serious punishment indeed. The most pressing issue that we must consider, however, is not whether they merit punishment if proven, because that is clear. Nor are we talking about the principle of capital punishment, as the House has already reached a view about that on a number of occasions. The question is whether it is necessary and justifiable to continue to apply different standards for our service men and women on one hand and for civilians on the other. It is my view—and it was the expressed view of the Committee—that that is not justifiable.
Following the Committee's decision, the Minister said that the Government were mildly embarrassed. The right hon. Gentleman looks puzzled. Perhaps I should have said that he was quoted in the press as saying that the Government were mildly embarrassed. That does not surprise me. Having lost the vote in Committee, the


Government have attempted to save face by claiming that it has all been a terrible mistake which can easily be corrected at the appropriate moment. I do not believe, however, that that should be the main source of the Government's embarrassment. The fact of the matter is plain: the Government have come here to tell the House that they must reimpose the death penalty in respect of these purely military offences in order to keep discipline in the armed forces at precisely the moment when we are welcoming our service men and women back as heroes from the Gulf.
Moreover, the Government must explain to the House —as the Minister failed to explain in his opening remarks —why we require the death penalty to ensure good order and discipline when seven of our NATO allies, including the French, who fought beside us in the Gulf, decided years ago that the death penalty should be abolished in military law. Why is the death penalty required for the British armed forces when it is not required in France, Denmark, Norway, Germany, Portugal, the Netherlands and Luxembourg?

Mr. John P. Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a distinction to be drawn between the NATO countries to which he referred and Britain, to the extent that Britain is the only one that has a professional and volunteer force, whose members should not be expected to behave in an exemplary manner, as they did in the Gulf, with the threat of capital punishment over them?

Dr. Reid: My hon. Friend makes a good point, to which I shall come in a moment. Most of the countries—indeed, all the countries—that I mentioned have a conscript army. One would think that those countries would have more justification for keeping the deterrent of the death penalty than countries with a volunteer army, such as the British Army. But they do not do so. We must ask why that is. What is different about us? Why do we require the death penalty to maintain good order and discipline in the British armed forces when that is not necessary in France, Norway, Denmark, Germany, Portugal, the Netherlands and Luxembourg? Lest anyone on the Conservative Benches should attempt to give us a neolithic racist analysis by saying that it is in the Anglo-Saxon character, I should point out that Australia and New Zealand, whose people presumably come mainly from the same stock as ours, have also recently revoked the death penalty—although that may of course be the result of the infusion of Celtic blood and good sense, particularly in New Zealand.
On a matter of life and death such as this, the Government have a duty to explain exactly why we differ. Are they saying that we need the death penalty because of the lack of leadership among our commanding officers? If they are, they will have a hard time defending their assertion following the officers' performance in the Gulf. Certainly, that is not my view, or that of my hon. Friends, nor is it the view of many Conservative Members. Are the Government justifying the distinction—the necessity to retain the death penalty here in contrast to seven of our allies—on the grounds that our service men and women are any less loyal, courageous or committed than those of our allies? Or are the Government really trying to tell the

British people that following the courage and determination shown by our young men and women not only in the Gulf but on many previous occasions on which they have defended their country?
The Government have a duty to be absolutely clear and specific in their argument and I do not think that the Minister was clear and specific in his opening remarks. It is no use telling us, as we have been told—not this evening, but in the past—that there is a law commission which might report or might not report, sooner rather than later, at some time in the indefinite future. Notwithstanding that fact, there is absolutely no argument against ensuring that, by the time the commission reports, the House has expressed its view on the matter. I cannot see why it is worse to have as the status quo at the time of the report no death penalty than it is to have as the status quo at the time of the report retention of the death penalty.
What are the Government trying to tell us by seeking to reintroduce the death penalty in military law? That is what they will be doing if they vote against clause stand part. Are they telling us that it is necessary to maintain discipline in the Army, Navy and Royal Air Force? Are they saying that, in the Gulf, our service men and women needed the threat of death hanging over their heads to prevent them from assisting the enemy or taking part in mutinous activity, but that the French did not? If that is what the Government are saying, it is a disgraceful slur on the reputation, integrity, courage and conviction of our forces. I do not believe for a minute that the Government and particularly the Minister of State, who is an ex-guardsman, consciously believe that, but that is the only logical and objective conclusion that can be drawn from the requirement that the death penalty should be reintroduced in our discipline Acts.
Since the end of world war two, British service men and women have been called upon to risk their lives in more than 10 conflicts. In not one of those conflicts has it been necessary to use the death penalty. It was not necessary to use it in Malaysia, Aden, Korea, Kenya, Cyprus, Suez, Oman, Thailand, the Falklands or in the Gulf. It has not been necessary to use it throughout the long and sorry history of the hostilities in Northern Ireland. In all those conflicts, the disciplinary record of the British armed forces has been quite outstanding despite their being in numerous situations where they were under enormous pressure or subjected to extreme provocation.
The Government will say that the reason for the absence of that lack of discipline is the presence of the death penalty. They claim that it is a deterrent. That is a marvellous circular argument. If the death penalty were used every week, the Government would say that that showed us how necessary the death penalty was to instil discipline and good order. If the death penalty is not used, they say that that shows that the death penalty is an effective deterrent. That is a completely circular argument.
Many Conservative and Opposition Members prefer to believe that our services have such an outstanding disciplinary record because of the professionalism, courage and, above all, devotion to duty displayed by our service men and women over the decades. Even if the Government remain unconvinced of that self-evident truth, they must conceive that our forces, through their outstanding service to this country, have earned the benefit of the doubt.
Some hon. Members have argued that the death penalty should be retained to ensure that it is available in the most


extreme cases, for example, where a maverick soldier collaborates with an enemy and in so doing severely harms Britain's interests or causes the death of many colleagues. However, to act in that case would not require the use of provisions under the services Acts. Ample provision for such a case is already contained in civilian law, as I read it, where the capital offence of treason includes within its definition being "adherent, to the Crown's enemies", a definition which satisfactorily covers an act of gross disloyalty envisaged by some hon. Members tonight.
Surely our service men and women deserve equal treatment under the law with civilians. I would go further: I believe that our service men and women already put their lives at risk by volunteering for the armed services and by joining up to defend their country. They risk their lives in war. Service men and women have shown a sense of patriotism which intrinsically deserves respect and which demands at least equality before the law in respect of subjects as important as the death penalty.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman said that service men should enjoy equal treatment with civilians. I remind him that there is a mandatory death sentence for treason for civilians. In those circumstances, and because we are not discussing a mandatory death sentence, there would be less than equal treatment in quite a different direction from that which the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Dr. Reid: I accept the discretionary element. The Minister is saying that the risk may be wider in the armed forces, but it is not quite as deep for the most extreme cases. Several hon. Members and I have already explained that the element of discretion involved by the lack of definition is very worrying. That applies not only at the level of the courts martial, but to the incredible discretion that apparently lies with the Secretary of State with regard to the definition of the difference between war and peace and, in the last instance, in respect of whether a death sentence passed by a court martial should be commuted.
Our service men and women should have the benefits of the extension of the protection that has already been afforded under civilian law by the House in its opposition to the death penalty. In the most extreme cases, there is already adequate provision under civilian law to cope with cases for which the death penalty may well be adequate. However, soldiers, sailors, air men and women would be treated on an equal footing with their civilian counterparts.

Mr. Norman Miscampbell: In all fairness, we all voted against the death penalty for treason. It is not a proper argument to claim that it is available in this case. I will vote beside those who wish to abolish it in the Army. However, I believe that the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) accompanied me through the Lobby when we voted against the death penalty for treason.

Dr. Reid: I am talking about the will of Parliament, not the will of individual Members. The will of Parliament has been expressed on those issues and it is that the law should still include a capital offence for treason. According to my interpretation of the subject, the civilian definition is wide enough to include the most extreme examples given by hon. Members to justify a much wider application of the death sentence for the armed forces.
As the hon. and learned Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) hinted, I believe that the threat of execution is an anachronism. It is a cruel and barbarous throwback. It has its roots in the era of forced conscription and in the philosophy of the press gang. I do not believe that it has a place in a volunteer army or volunteer forces that operate within and on behalf of a civilian society in which capital punishment has been abolished for the civilians.
I want to draw the attention of the House to a tragic and horrifying anomaly which illustrates the inequality and injustice facing our service men and women and which the reintroduction of the death penalty in military law would reproduce. Let us consider a British soldier in Northern Ireland who is reaching the end of a long term of duty. He has been subjected to physical and psychological pressures the like of which we cannot imagine. Indeed, we could consider a soldier in any hostility or war that could be defined as war at the Minister's discretion.
Let us imagine a not unlikely scenario in which details of that soldier's patrol are betrayed by a British civilian and the patrol is ambushed by terrorists and a number of his colleagues and civilians are murdered by the terrorists. During that attack, after his long and gruelling period in the armed services, that soldier commits an act which could be defined as misconduct in action. Perhaps he panics and abandons his post. Perhaps he uses words that are likely to cause despondency or unnecessary alarm.
Under military law at the moment, that solider could be executed. However, the agent who betrayed him and the terrorists who wrought murder and mayhem on his colleagues and the civilian population could not face the same fate. They would be afforded the protection of a civilised code of penalties freely passed and backed by this Parliament. That is a protection which the Government seek to remove from our service men and women by removing clause 17 from the Bill.
Where in God's name is the justice behind that? Is not it time that we ended such a tragic anomaly? Is not it time that we paid a compliment to our services' professionalism and dedication by ending that relic of conscription and the press gang? Is not it time that we extended to our forces, who bear the burden of protecting our freedom, values and rules of civilised life the benefit and protection of those same freedoms, values and standards of civilised life? I and many hon. Members believe that that is the very least that we owe our service men and women.

Mr. John Wilkinson: I support my now doubly honourable and gallant Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces in his determination to ensure that the clause is removed from the Bill. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend's elevation to the Privy Council and to the very helpful way in which he always conducted himself throughout the long and detailed proceedings of the Special Standing Committee.
I greatly appreciated the sincerity of the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) both in Committee and this evening. However, my right hon. Friend is right. I regret that Her Majesty's Government have not imposed a three-line Whip on the issue, because it is of paramount importance for the armed forces, of crucial significance to the community as a whole and important constitutionally.
The great merit of the Special Standing Committee procedure is that members of the Committee have two


bites of the cherry. They can summon witnesses and examine the merits or otherwise of the principles of the proposed legislation and the issues that it raises. They then have the chance of operating as a Standing Committee, and considering the legislation line by line and clause by clause.
Let us consider the first process first. The outcome of that deliberation and of the cross-examination of the expert witnesses from the Ministry of Defence was that, on balance, it was useful to retain the option of the death penalty for five service offences and of course—we were bound to do this—that it should remain obligatory for the offence of treason. I urge hon. Members to read paragraph 21 of our recommendations. The paragraph was very carefully drafted. I urge hon. Members also to read paragraphs 411 to 421 of the evidence session which took place on 13 February. If they do so, they will see a clear exposition of the arguments.
To summarise those arguments, the service offences are potentially of such a heinous nature that, if committed in certain circumstances, they could cause the deaths of thousands and thousands of people. They could also cause the failure of operations, the failure of campaigns and, in certain instances, they could even cause the failure of Her Majesty's forces to win a war, with all the constitutional implications that that would have for the defence and freedom of this country.
The sanctions are discretionary, except in the case of treason, and they are ultimate sanctions that would be involved only in exceptional cases. That this is so is made clear by the very fact that they have not been invoked since the second world war. Some people such as the hon. Member for Motherwell, North have argued that it is difficult to distinguish between declared war and peace or hostilities and conflict. Since the second world war, declared conflicts have been very rare, but states of hostility have been all too frequent for our armed forces. However, in peacetime, too, there can be certain circumstances in which the ultimate sanction of the death penalty could be appropriate.
I refer, for example, to mutiny or failure to suppress mutiny. We should bear in mind that not only does power come from the barrel of a gun but that our armed forces have at their disposal fearsome weapons of mass destruction, even including nuclear weapons. If members of Her Majesty's forces are not to be dissuaded or deterred from mutiny to the most effective extent possible, at least theoretically there is a greater chance that the weapons that they have at their disposal could be misused by mutineers. We know what the ultimate constitutional consequences of this could be. The very fact that we still retain a civil law of treason which has the same force in service law shows that we regard that threat as serious. The first step towards an act of treachery and treason could be an act of mutiny in peacetime.
It is not only difficult to make an effective distinction between peace and war, which was borne out in our Committee hearings, but it is legislatively clearer and less ambiguous for the law to be uniform as between peace and war, and there are very good rational reasons for so doing.
The next part of my argument reflects the arithmetical accident of the second part of our Committee proceedings to which I alluded. We had decided, in our deliberative

phase on the Chairman's report, that we should draft it, as we did, retaining the death penalty as a useful ultimate sanction for members of the armed forces for the offences to which we have alluded. However, in the so-called Standing Committee procedure, by an accident—as Chairman, I was a spectator in the process—one member was in hospital, another was in China, and another was temporarily absent. The Parliamentary Private Secretary was looking for the temporarily absent colleague. As a consequence, the clause was inserted in the legislation. That had certainly not been the intention of the Committee when it deliberated the issue in a previous discussion of the Special Standing Committee report—it was an arithmetical aberration. Let us be generous—however it was perhaps fortunate. As a consequence, we have this important debate tonight.
I argue most strongly that it would be wholly inappropriate for the Committee to do anything other than reject clause 17. I wish only that Her Majesty's Government had imposed a three-line Whip to that effect.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Before I criticise the Minister of State, I congratulate him on his appointment to the Privy Council. Now that he has arrived at that august and, by its name, highly secret body, I am sorry that he is not standing up to his civil servants on the issue and recognising that it is an anachronism to retain the death penalty for such offences. I am sorry to say that the Minister of State tonight and in Committee found himself in a dreadful tangle about peace and war and about when the legislation is to be applied.
As the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) suggested, under the 1955 armed forces legislation, the key trigger point is the enemy. An enemy is defined as somebody who is engaged in armed operations against any of Her Majesty's forces. I should have thought that, under that definition, there is little doubt that the IRA is an enemy. It is engaged in armed operations against Her Majesty's forces. I hope that the Minister of State will clear up that point. If a British service man commits an act within the sections of the armed forces Acts in Northern Ireland, would he be sent to a court martial? Would that court martial be able to pass the discretionary sentence of the death penalty? On the other hand, is the Minister saying, "No, all this happens in peacetime and because of that we will not charge the unfortunate service man"? If so, he will find himself in a tangle about what is or is not peacetime. There is certainly not peace in Northern Ireland. If service men fall foul of the legislation, I do not want to see them being sent to a court martial and then sentenced to death.
The Minister should also make clear where that statement originated. I have spent a couple of hours in the Library thumbing my way through the "Manual of Military Law". I last looked at it years ago when I was at a warrant officer cadet school. It has changed a bit since then; it has got longer and more voluminous. I might not have been very diligent, but I could not find that statement of policy in the manual. The first I heard of it was in Committee, but perhaps other hon. Members have read it or seen it. When the Inland Revenue issues various exemptions or discretionary exemptions from legislation, it publishes them so that everybody can look them up. Where is this policy or law in the "Manual of Military Law"? I hope that the Minister will tell us because these are important matters. Some of us believe that the rule of


law should apply and that we should not have to rely simply on policy statements, even from a worthy and honourable Minister. I make no criticism of the right hon. Gentleman, but we should not have to rely on such so-called "policy statements".
6.30 pm
I turn now to the issue of whether we should maintain, repeal or change the clause. As the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East said, this is an argument about the death penalty. The House has debated the matter time and time again and many arguments have been made against the death penalty. I turn first to the argument about morality. In moral terms, I believe that it does not make any difference whether the offence is civil or military because it is immoral for the state to take a life even in the circumstances that have been described. Although I recognise that others will disagree, I believe that the House accepted the argument about morality when it decided to repeal the death penalty for civil offences.
We must also consider the theories about punishment. When I was a student in the 1950s—the House does not contain many students from the fifties these days—I remember reading an article by a gentleman called Mabbott, who was a philosophy don at St. John's college, Oxford. No doubt he got them from somewhere else, but he summarised the three theories of punishment as reform, deterrence and retribution. Those theories may fit most forms of punishment, but not capital punishment. That certainly applies to the theory about reform.
I do not know whether military law that can invoke the death penalty is a deterrent. The death penalty would probably not be a deterrent in civil law for most of the crimes and murders that are committed in Britain in the latter part of the twentieth century, and I do not believe that it is a deterrent in military law. If the unfortunate Argentinian conscripts who did not acquit themselves as they should have at the end of the Falklands war were going home to face such legislation, it did not deter them from failing to do what they should have done. Let us also consider the poor Iraqi farmers who were conscripted into Saddam Hussein's army and who gave themselves up in droves. If such legislation had been in operation for them, they would no doubt have broken every clause of it—and Saddam's legislation is no doubt even worse and more draconian. Those conscripts were not deterred by the thought that they would face the ultimate penalty at home. If such things happen, the army collapses, but a few sentences in a manual on military law or in legislation will not be a deterrent.
The third theory of punishment is retribution, which is a good old-fashioned word that means revenge. I do not say that society does not have a right to exact some form of collective revenge, as part of punishment, for heinous crimes, of which rape is a classic case. However, even revenge must have its bounds in a civilised society, and the death penalty goes too far. There is a danger that revenge itself will go too far in the heated mood of war when the realm is threatened and when the security of the state is being attacked.
When the House debated capital punishment in respect of civilian crimes, one of the powerful arguments used against it was that a jury can make mistakes. I would imagine that a court martial could also make mistakes. The courts martial that are called rapidly during a war are

certainly likely to make mistakes. However, we should consider not only the possibility of mistakes, but the pressure that falls on the courts. Unfortunately, British courts have recently been under the pressure of terrorism. I do not criticise anybody for making a mistake, but we must recognise the military pressure that will exist when the realm is under attack and national security is being endangered. A time of war is not the best time to decide matters that could lead irrevocably not only to conviction but to the death of a service man or woman.
There have been many references to the law of treason. Returning again to my student days of the 1950s and 1960s, I remember reading the case of Roger Casement. F. E. Smith always used to say that Casement was hanged because of the absence or presence—I cannot remember which—of a comma in the Treason Act 1351. The argument in the Casement case centred on whether there should or should not be a comma in the legislation which, being so old, did not contain commas. Casement was hanged.
I also remember reading the case of Joyce v. Director of Public Prosecutions. I am sorry to say that I am referring to Lord Haw Haw. Even to a student, Lord Jowitt's judgment seemed to owe more to revenge and retribution than to the canons and principles of jurisprudence. In the emotive circumstances of a war or its aftermath, deciding such matters is extremely difficult, especially when they involve a person's life.
It appears that the draftsmen of the 1955 Acts, or the persons who instructed the draftsmen, may have recognised that dilemma to a certain extent because, as the Minister pointed out, the sanction is not mandatory; it is discretionary. We are talking about complicated offences—not about the simple offence of doing or not doing something. The legislation contains many words, with many subordinate clauses and commas. Intent has to be proved. Perhaps those who drafted the legislation, which goes back a long way, thought that the death penalty should not be mandatory because of the many different nuances. But that does not solve the problem; it simply creates a further dilemma. It is not necessarily an advantage to say that the penalty is discretionary because the court must exercise that discretion to determine a man's life or death. How does the court or the court martial decide that? A splendid plea in mitigation might result in a life sentence while a poor plea in mitigation could lead to the death penalty.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman accept that there would be degrees of severity in any charges coming before a court martial, which would then make a judgment on the sentence depending on the severity of the crime committed?

Mr. Davies: Yes, I accept that, but once we start talking about different degrees of severity, we get into great difficulties with the death penalty. I can also remember reading the Homicide Act 1957, which abolished the death penalty except for murder in the course or furtherance of a theft. The courts encountered all sorts of difficulties with that. The case of Craig and Bentley was mentioned earlier from a sedentary position, but we must also remember the case of poor old Gipsy Smith. A policeman jumped on the bumper of his car when he had been stealing scaffolding clips. In both cases, the Home Secretary had to decide whether to extend the prerogative of mercy. Courts martial


will be in a similar position and will almost have to assume the Home Secretary's role when deciding whether a person is guilty. It is all very well for the Minister to talk about degrees of severity but if someone is found guilty of an offence under a particular section of a piece of legislation, sentence has to be pronounced. How does the court decide? The court martial is in an invidious position. I would not like to sit on such a court martial.

Mr. Brazier: I have been listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman's case. Surely the last sentence that he uttered goes to the heart of the matter: he would not like to serve on a court martial. With respect, as he is not a member of the armed forces, he never would serve on a court martial. The point about this category of offence is that we are dealing with matters which are not for legal judgment but which occur in the special circumstances of a war and on which military judgments are necessary, albeit with the ultimate appeal to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. He does not do service to the members of the court martial. They exercise a legal judgment. It is a legal court—if that is not a statement of the obvious. The military judgment is about the facts and whether the defendent comes within the legislation or not. The legal judgment is not only whether that person should be convicted but whether he should be sentenced to the death penalty. It is not fair to impose on a court martial the power which countless Home Secretaries said that they did not like to exercise when there was a royal prerogative in respect of the death penalty in civilian law.
The more that one examines the matter, the more of a dilemma it appears. I understand that the Ministry of Defence has said that in times of peace it would not invoke the death penalty. The Ministry of Defence does not want to see British service men sentenced to death. The Ministry of Defence is not a villain in this matter, but it is locked into the dilemma of the legislation. The more that one examines it and the more amendments one seeks to make, whether on policy grounds or otherwise, the more difficult the dilemma becomes.
It is not good for the Minister to say that the Secretary of State would not do this or that, or that the court would be told in no uncertain terms what was expected. Who are Ministers to tell the court what to do, even if they are Ministers at the Ministry of Defence and the court is a court martial? That is not the basis of the rule of law in this country. That is not a principle that we will die for and defend and for which our service men will fight. It is not a satisfactory case to make to the House.
Without any disrespect to the Minister, there is no way out of the dilemma. The only solution is to maintain the clause and accept the logic that the death penalty must go. I do not believe that that will affect service discipline or affect the excellence of our armed forces one bit one way or the other. The Ministry of Defence should accept that at last, and accept the clause.

Sir John Stokes: We are debating a most serious matter, one which gives us all a great deal to think about. Perhaps I could first make a practical point. In a fairly long experience with members of Her Majesty's forces in all three services, with officers, non-commissioned officers and men, I have never once

heard the subject of the death penalty raised. That is during a period which stretches back 50 years. Therefore, the excitement and intensity of the opposition to the death penalty expressed in the House will come new to most people in Her Majesty's forces.
We heard from the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) a most able and carefully argued speech. He was clearly a most useful member of the Committee, the report of which I read with the greatest interest. However, the tone of the hon. Gentleman's speech seemed flawed in one sense. He suggested that to make these dire penalties available in the desperate circumstances to which he referred was in some way a slur on the vast mass of our forces. That is wrong. No member of Her Majesty's forces would mind in the least if the law remained as it was or feel in any way that it cast a slur on them.
As someone who loves his country most deeply, as we all do here, I believe that we are discussing the most terrible potential happenings. They are quite unlike the ordinary type of crime that we come across in civilian life. We are discussing not, as some Opposition Members suggest, some theoretical debating point, but surely the essential defence of the nation in battle, often in dire circumstances. The offences with which we are dealing are serious and, as some people correctly say, treasonable. The very life and existence of the nation might be at stake. To avoid those terrible crimes being committed, the supreme penalty of the death sentence must be available to the military courts.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir John Stokes: I wish to progress a little further. I have only just started. I am trying to make a short speech because I am aware that many hon. Members wish to speak. If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I shall not give way.
The death penalty for the armed forces was discussed by the Defence Select Committee. The view of the Ministry of Defence and of the services was made clear. They did not wish to change the present position on the death penalty. Surely this House, some Members of which have not served in the armed services, must pay some regard to that important point. We cannot and should not let down our fighting troops by any sign of weakness or any theoretical, liberal, pacifist or other argument. We are here to defend the nation and support our troops. We should maintain the penalties as they are and leave the position wholly unchanged.

Mr. Rees: When I listened to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), I reached the pitch where I decided not to speak. He expressed cogently and with the benefit of a legal background many of the points that I had wanted to make. However, the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes) provoked me, in the best parliamentary sense of the term, when he mentioned pacifism.
I oppose the Government's view, but not because I am a pacifist. I spent five years at war, as my father did before me in the first world war. He was a founder member of the Labour party in a small way. Pacifism does not arise in this matter but I shall not rehearse the arguments. My right


hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli and the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) dealt with the point that there is little difference between the argument about capital punishment in the armed services and the argument about capital punishment generally. I simply wish to mention that, when we debate whether to bring back capital punishment, terrorism is always raised. I have more reason than most to detest terrorism, but I do not approve of capital punishment even for terrorists. I hold that view for very good reasons, quite apart from the moral argument. I understand that if a "terrorist" is involved in a shoot-out with the Army, people get killed. Those who live by the sword die by the sword. But whether the state should become involved in capital punishment is a different argument.
I wish to have one point made clear by the Minister before I rehearse several other points. The Minister will not be surprised to know that I am interested in Northern Ireland. With the acceptance of the Irish Government, the British Government never talk about a state of war. All Governments have done the same. The IRA obtains only 2 per cent. of the vote in Northern Ireland. It is not a national freedom army. There is not a state of war in Northern Ireland. I am concerned for the soldiers in Northern Ireland. They are there at our behest. We are passing legislation which, at least according to the definition of peace and war, does not apply to them. In response to the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli, I hope that the Minister will clear that point up.
I am affected by not the general argument, but two other arguments. In 1942 I was stationed with the RAF at Uxbridge, which was a good place to be. Although we thought that nothing ever happened there, my young eyes were opened because in one unit—I do not recall its number—a fair number of young men suffered from LMF, which stood for lack of moral fibre. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) also served in the RAF. He will recall that term. A fair number—I do not know the exact number—of young men refused to fly. They were afraid. Some people—although not those who flew—called them cowards.
Sixty-odd thousand very brave young men died in Bomber Command and some—I gather mainly from Bomber Command—refused to fly. I never felt that those who refused to fly deserved capital punishment even in time of war. Those involved knew that. The only people who may think that they deserved to die are those who have never heard a shot fired in anger. That is the difference between the two points of view.
Many of the equally brave American 8th Air Force, which flew over Germany in daytime and suffered enormous casualties, peeled off and landed in Norway and Switzerland. I do not know what the Americans did about that. I am sorry that it happened, but nothing will ever bring me round to believing that those pilots should have been shot or sentenced to death. Some who take that view —I do not include the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge—have never heard a shot fired in anger.
It is easy to say, "Execute them". My father told me what happened during the first world war. People who were afraid of going over the top were executed. We should not consider doing that type of thing because I do not believe that it is part of maintaining the discipline of the Army, the Royal Air Force or the Royal Navy.
Brave young men, and these days young women, will always fight for their country and they do not need the death penalty to maintain their courage. That is a mistake and the Government are dealing with the problem in the wrong way. The death penalty is not needed in Germany or France and I, among other hon. Members, have great respect for German soldiers. They fought with great bravery during the second world war. If they do not need the death penalty, why should our soldiers, airmen and sailors need it?
It is the trouble of older men to talk of being a student, but, unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli, I was a student not in the 1950s but in the 1930s. I was then at Salerno in an RAF commando unit and I saw the bravery of the Army at the time. It was not generalled very well, but that is another matter. A small bridgehead was formed and a number of soldiers mutinied. The case is famous and it is still being referred to by my hon. Friends. I do not know the details of the case, but it was a small area and I learnt of what was going on and, whatever else, those who mutinied did not deserve to die and they did not. I believe that my former right hon. and learned Friend, the one-time Lord Chancellor and Attorney-General, and the Member for what was West Ham, South, Lord Elwyn-Jones, served on the court martial and the question arose as to whether the mutineers should be executed. Given the questions that are asked in the House from time to time, it is just as well that they were not and they certainly did not deserve to be.
The Government are going about the matter in the wrong way. I understand the views of many people, especially in the Army. I have no concept of what it is like to be in the front line, but I respect the bravery of our armed forces and I have never had any doubt about that. However, I also know that sometimes people are afraid and that the only people who are afraid are those on the front line. People who say that they are not afraid are not telling the truth. In that respect, I hope that the Government will not try to overturn the clause.

Mr. Michael Shersby: First, I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for not being here at the beginning of the debate as I was unavoidably detained. I also offer him my warmest congratulations. I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) who spent an interesting part of his service career in my constituency.
On 17 December 1990, the House decided for the 17th time to reject the reintroduction of capital punishment for murder. In that debate, I argued that the death penalty should be reintroduced for the murder of police officers because the police and I believe it is a unique deterrent, which would protect them as they go about their difficult and dangerous job. The House listened to the debate and decided not to reintroduce the death penalty for murder.
Tonight the House is considering the different, but closely related, question whether the death penalty should be retained for very serious offences committed in wartime. That was detailed in the evidence which the Select Committee considered. It seems to me that we have a curious state of affairs. The Government overwhelmingly voted for the abolition of capital punishment for murder on a traditional free vote, and they were not prepared to retain that sanction for the murder of a police officer.
That vote has been very much in my mind in the past few hours. I am reminded of the action of my right hon.


Friend the Home Secretary in releasing one of the persons convicted of the murder of three Metropolitan police officers in 1966, the first year after capital punishment was abolished. The three persons concerned have spent over 25 years in prison. One is about to be released and he did not fire the weapon.
We are in danger of having double standards. If Parliament decides that we should not have capital punishment to protect the thin blue line who protect every man and woman in this country against armed criminals and terrorists, I shall find it difficult to support the retention of capital punishment for offences committed by young soldiers, sailors or airmen, who, as the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South pointed out, may have been terrified during what he—or these days she—may have had to face in the heat of battle.
The House must make up its mind and decide where it stands. If we are not to have capital punishment for the murder of a civilian or a police officer, we should abolish it altogether. For the first time, I shall vote against the retention of capital punishment, because I believe that we should be consistent.
On 17 December 1990, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary urged the House not to abolish capital punishment for the crime of treason. When I was preparing for that debate, I looked up the reason why capital punishment existed for that crime. I discovered that it was introduced as an act of mercy and as an alternative to being burnt at the stake or being hung, drawn and quartered. We are still waiting for the results of consultations with the Law Commission on whether that penalty for treason should be removed from the statute book once and for all.
If we are to abolish capital punishment for the murder of a policeman, let us get rid of it for the offences referred to in the report and for treason as well. Then, we and every police officer in the country will know where we stand.

Mr. Peter Archer: The House will appreciate the hon. Gentleman's courageous speech. Is he aware that, although we were told in December that the Law Commission was reconsidering the crime of treason, my information is that it is doing no such thing and that it has still not considered it?

Mr. Shersby: I am interested in what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has to say. Recently, my pen has hovered over a question paper several times with the thought that I would ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary what progress was being made. I desisted because, with such an illustrious body as the Law Commission, such matters are not decided overnight. However, like the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I am interested in when the Law Commission will deliberate and decide. Frankly, I think that it should do that, so that if Parliament should ever again consider the question of capital punishment, it will be able to do so with a clean slate. We would then have no capital punishment for the murder of a civilian, a police officer, a member of the armed services or for treason.

7 pm

Mr. Wilkinson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, especially as I was unable to do so at the conclusion of my speech. He adduces the argument that we are considering the example of a poor frightened soldier who, in the heat of battle, is unwise enough to commit one of the service offences. He has argued that, therefore, we should not retain the possibility of a discretionary death sentence being invoked against him. But what about someone who takes careful, calculated, premeditated action, perhaps by inciting others to mutiny and planning it for some time or who assists the enemy in a way that could be catastrophic to his friends and colleagues, perhaps by allowing terrorists to place a bomb in a crucial installation in Northern Ireland? We should not be carried away by the emotive example of the poor soldier in battle, with whom we sympathise greatly, because we should look at the wider issues, which are crucial.

Mr. Shersby: I believe that I can reply to my hon. Friend briefly. In 1966 three armed men set about, deliberately, an act of armed robbery. They were stopped by three brave Metropolitan police officers, Detective Sergeant Christopher Head, Constable Geoffrey Fox and Detective Constable David Wombwell. Those three Metropolitan officers were shot dead by the three armed men. One of those men is still in prison, one died 10 years ago and the other is about to be released. If the death penalty is not to be available to prevent more police officers from being shot dead in cold blood—hon. Members will be aware of one or two other cases in the past three years—I do not believe that we can apply different standards in war. A war is going on in the streets of the country and our policemen and policewomen act to prevent that and to protect us.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) represents a neighbouring constituency to mine and, although I deeply respect his remarks, I do not believe that we can apply double standards. We must either reintroduce the death penalty for the murder of a police officer or get rid of it for certain military offences.

Mrs. Fyfe: I welcome the sentiments that the hon. Gentleman has expressed. An offence may be committed by someone who is frightened and unable to face the heat of battle, but what about someone who by a deliberate and cold-blooded act chooses to put this colleagues and perhaps his country in danger? No one is seeking to argue that that person should get away with it, but he should not necessarily suffer the death penalty as a result of a court martial. He could be put on trial and given a heavy prison sentence. Where is the need for the death sentence? No one who opposes the clause has explained why a person in such circumstances should meet his end by being hanged or at the hands of a firing squad.

Mr. Shersby: The hon. Lady has made her point well and I do not believe that I can add to it.
I have made my case and I have nothing more to say except that I believe that we should have consistent standards on what is the ultimate deterrent and penalty. The House made a decision in December and I suspect that it will make a similar one tonight.

Mr. Peter Viggers: On several occasions during his speech the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) referred to the reintroduction of the death


penalty or, as he said, putting the death penalty back into the law. I am sure that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman would agree that the clause relates to whether we should remove a penalty that now exists which can be used against individuals who are guilty of serious service offences. Such offences are committed not in peacetime but at a time of war or armed conflict and amount to hazarding the lives of comrades or putting the security of the country at risk. We are considering whether to change the law, but I believe that the law should stay unchanged.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who was Chairman of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, outlined the circumstances in which the Select Committee came to its conclusion. He said that the Committee was minded that the law should remain as it was.
I was the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill that was considered five years ago. We considered the retention of the death penalty and took evidence from the Ministry of Defence. Five years ago the Committee decided that the penalty should remain part of the law. It would be unwise of the House today to fail to take cognisance of the evidence put before the Select Committee this year and five years ago from the Ministry of Defence which, having considered the matter with all the seriousness it deserves, recommended that the death penalty for certain offences should remain,

The hon. Member for Motherwell, North made a good, skilful speech, as my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes) has already said. The hon. Gentleman almost had the Committee believing that any hon. Member who wanted the law to remain was almost guilty of criticising our armed forces.
Gosport has more armed forces personnel than any other constituency. The good people of Gosport considered the selection and election of a Member of Parliament and they were broad-minded enough to elect someone who had served in the Royal Air Force and the Territorial Army. I believe that members of the armed forces, of whom I represent so many and with whom I am proud to maintain contact, want the death penalty to be retained for extreme cases where an individual or a group has hazarded the lives of comrades, put them at peril, and hazarded the security of the country. I believe that the law should remain as it is, and that the death penalty should remain for a limited range of cases.

Mr. Brazier: All hon. Members who have spoken today have shown enormous concern for the welfare of the armed forces. I hope that the House will accept that I, too, have shown concern for the armed forces in the short time I have been here. Unlike the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) and my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes), I have never seen action in war, although both my father and grandfather were wounded in action.
The speech of the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reed) was interesting and sincere. This debate is not about impugning the honour of our armed forces—far from it. It is about keeping faith with our armed forces, the vast majority of whom have gone to war and would go again in the future with the best possible spirit.
I should like to recount an incident that did not reach the pages of history, except in an account of one lance-corporal. In the battle up the spine of the Appennines, a small village was held by a much depleted

company of a unit which was part of a regiment with which I was associated some years ago in the Territorial Army. The unit was cut off for about 24 hours by a German force. During that time one of the unit's members who had deserted on two previous occasions and who had been recaptured was held down below in a cellar.
It is some years since I read the lance-corporal's account of the incident, but, if I remember rightly, as the Germans closed in on the unit the man in the cellar called out, "You stupid idiots. In a few hours' time you will all be dead and I'll be eating sauerkraut".
The position was not captured by the Germans as the unit was reinforced after a counter attack by other British soldiers. If that man had gone beyond abuse and had used a firearm to kill his commander or other crucial personnel to assist the enemy, would it be right that the Army should not have the sanction, even in principle, of the death penalty? I firmly believe that it should have that sanction.
We have had a long debate on this matter and I do not want to detain the House, but I must deal with the red herring which has been raised about treason. Several hon. Members voted in favour of abolishing that civil offence. It is being examined in the wider context of constitutional arrangements anyway. I firmly believe that, whatever the considerations on that, it is right that the armed forces should have the right to enforce the death penalty, subject always to the discretion of the Secretary of State.
I sympathise strongly with what has been said on the subject of discretion. Plainly, it is not possible to determine in the common sense concept of war when armed forces are legally at war. We have hardly ever declared war. In only a small number of the incidents in which our armed forces have been in action this century has there been a formal declaration of war. That is why it must be left to the discretion of the Government whether or not the powers are enforced.
We are not discussing a sanction which has been used in the past 40 years. Nor are we discussing whether we trust our armed forces: of course, we do. It is clear from all the speeches that the House is united in its admiration for our armed forces. We are discussing whether in exceptional circumstances the ultimate sanction should be available in cases such as the one that I described. I urge the Committee to reject clause 17.

Mr. Higgins: I join with hon. Members on both sides who have congratulated my right hon. Friend the Minister on his election to the Privy Council and I wish him well in his office.
I assure Labour Front-Bench Members that we on this side of the Committee are on a free vote. That being so, it seemed appropriate to come to listen to the arguments. I had no intention whatever of making a speech, but I have been provoked to do so not least by my right hon. Friend. Several points need to be clarified.
It is fortunate that we are having this debate following the Select Committee report which went into the matter in considerable detail. I read some of the arguments with interest. Some people take a moral line on the argument about capital punishment, but the crux is whether the deterrent effect is sufficient to outweigh the risk of mistakes. That argument remains the central point in this debate. Therefore, let us first consider whether mistakes are likely to be made.
Some witnesses expressed the view that there was less likely to be a mistake in a case involving capital


punishment in military operations than in civilian ones. I find that surprising. In the heat of battle, the witnesses themselves are involved in highly emotional circumstances, so it is far more likely that they will be genuinely mistaken than the witness of a murder who is in a sense a bystander. Therefore, mistakes are more likely to be made at a court martial than in a civilian case.
The Chairman of the Select Committee asked:
Is there a precise definition for what constitutes misconduct in action?
Several examples were given. Then the witness added:
There is one other thing, to be complete, if I may Mr. Chairman, and it is, if he fails to use the utmost exertions to carry the lawful orders of his superior officers into execution.
My goodness, the appraisal by someone else in action of whether someone was using his "utmost exertions" must be open to doubt. At the very least, mistakes are as likely to be made in this area as in civilian cases. We already know of a large number of civilian cases in which, if we had not abolished capital punishment some years ago, innocent people would have been hanged. The issue is, to say the least, finely balanced.
The next question is whether the penalty constitutes a deterrent. It is a greater deterrent if the penalty is certain. The less certain the penalty, the less likely it is to deter. What provoked me to intervene was my right hon. Friend's speech. As I understand it, he said that the penalty would not be applied in peacetime, but that we could not be certain whether we were in time of peace or war. We were further told that, moreover, in peacetime the Secretary of State would be obliged to overrule any decision by a court martial to impose the death penalty. I hope that my right hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong. In other words, neither we nor anybody who might be deterred by the death penalty knows whether the Secretary of State would be so obliged because we would not know whether we were in time of war.
Again, if I understand correctly, the situation was uncertain during the Falklands war. We do not know whether the death penalty might have been imposed at that time, whether or not it was time of war or whether or not the Secretary of State would have been obliged to overrule any decision of a court martial.
My right hon. Friend was unsure what form such a death penalty might take—whether by firing squad or hanging. He thought that it would be by firing squad, although the last execution was by hanging. It is absolutely clear that, however the House votes tonight—I do not know how it will vote—the present uncertainties must be cleared up. We cannot leave the matter as it is tonight. The House should be a great deal clearer about the law than my right hon. Friend suggested in his opening remarks.

Mr. Tony Benn: I have been moved to speak by the debate, but I shall be brief.
While listening to the arguments about the uncertain definition of times of peace or war, my mind went back to 1956 when I served in the House during the Suez war. I asked Sir Anthony Eden whether we were at war. We were not. We never declared war against Egypt. The following day I had a letter from an RAF pilot in Cyprus. He believed that he would be sent into action against Egypt but that it would be an act of aggression, and he asked what he should do. He knew that I had served in the air force. I replied, as I am bound to do, that he must make

his decision on the ground of conscience. As I understand it, it is possible that that man would have been liable for the penalty although he had a conscientious objection to bombing a country with which we were not at war. Such are the real matters which the Minister must address.
Many cases involve, not cowardice or a lack of moral fibre, which was the phrase tossed about during the war, but a conscientious objection. William Douglas-Home, the brother of a former Prime Minister, was court martialled for refusing to bomb Caen during the war because he had a moral objection to bombing civilian targets. Those matters cannot conceivably be left to the discretion of the Secretary of State, whether or not it is peacetime and whether or not the death penalty is used.

Mr. Tony Banks: I had a conversation with a Conservative Member who also served as an officer at the time of Suez. He told me that, because he felt that what was going on was morally unacceptable, as far as he could guarantee it he wanted to make damned sure that none of his troops was caught up in it. That might also fall within the definition that we are discussing. It is a further example from the same period which affected an hon. Member.

Mr. Benn: Many examples could be given, but it is clear that it is not a straightforward question of defiance of orders in time of war. It is a very complicated matter. The Minister is asking the House to overturn a decision of the Committee and make it possible in moments of great uncertainty, when motives may be very different, to court-martial and execute a member of the armed forces. I do not believe that to be right.

Dr. Reid: I am mindful of the time, so I shall sum up as briefly as possible the case that I put earlier and respond to some of the points that have been made.
First, may I offer my belated congratulations to the Minister on joining the Privy Council. It was not because of pique that I did not do so earlier—we all get there some time. I am sure that he deserves it. Whether the Privy Council deserves him is an open question, and I would allow a free vote on that, as we are to have tonight on the death penalty.
I have suggested that the death penalty, as applicable in the armed services, is an anachronism. We are told that it is not used in peacetime on principle. It has not been used for almost 50 years during hostilities in which British forces have been involved. The terms "peacetime" and "war" are ill defined at the very least; that has been illustrated by the Minister tonight.
The discretion that the court martial and the Minister are allowed to make a decision under the terms of those definitions is equally ill defined. The death penalty is not applicable even to terrorists, or to those whose acts against our service men and women may result in the loss of their lives. It is not needed by many of our allies, including members of NATO. Even in countries other than our allies where the death penalty is retained—for example, Iraq —it does not achieve a deterrent effect.
It was argued earlier that the death penalty should be retained in principle. That is the most incredible argument. A person is not executed in principle; he is executed in practice. The theory of deterrence, whether in this example or in others, depends on the belief that the deterrent is not there only in principle. A deterrent is a deterrent only if its


use in practice is credible. To argue for its retention in principle is a departure from not only the armed services discipline Acts, but the general rule of deterrence.
We are in danger of operating double standards, because we are arguing for the retention of the death penalty, which the House has consistently rejected for acts of terrorism or for the murder of policemen. I shall give just one piece of advice to the civilians in the Chamber tonight who are prepared to vote on this matter—that applies to 90 per cent. of hon. Members: do unto others as you would have done unto yourself. The House has consistently made clear, and enshrined in law, the belief that the death penalty should not apply to civilians. It would be a double standard if civilian hon. Members voted for the death penalty to apply to non-civilians in the armed forces.
I ascribe no malevolent intentions—no wish to attack or cast slurs on the armed forces—to hon. Members who vote tonight to retain the death penalty. However, whatever subjective motivations hon. Members may have, the only logical conclusion to be drawn from a vote for the retention of the death penalty for members of the British armed forces when it is not required by many of our allies is that our troops can be expected to exercise discipline and good order only when the threat of death hangs over their heads. Whether or not it is meant as a slur, I believe that it is a criticism of our armed forces—perhaps subconscious, but nevertherless undeserved.
I believe that the death penalty is an anachronism and a barbaric instrument. Rather than countenancing the burial of one more of our service men, we would do better to bury the death penalty for the armed forces.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: May I begin by saying how grateful I am to hon. Members for their kind references to my entry in the honours list on Saturday. Acquaintances and members of my family have asked me what it means. I understand that it involves an advisory role to Her Majesty the Queen. With no disrespect to Her Majesty, I have likened it to a long-service and good-conduct medal given to members of the armed forces. I have occasionally presented such medals, and I have asked the person what he has done to deserve it. I invariably receive the same reply—years of undetected crimes. I am grateful to you, Miss Boothroyd, for allowing me to digress. That is clearly not the subject that we are discussing this evening.
Safeguards were referred to earlier. My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) raised the question of mistakes. Any sentence has to go through a number of stages. First, a court martial cannot accept a plea of guilty to an offence that carries the death penalty. Secondly, the court must reach a unanimous decision. Thirdly, if the death sentence is passed—it is an optional, not a mandatory, sentence—it is subject to confirmation by a senior officer, which in this case means a major-general or above. After that, the sentence is subject to review by the defence council. The death penalty cannot be carried out until that procedure has been complied with. I accept the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing. Mistakes can still be made, but much is done to provide as many safeguards as possible.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) questioned whether the death penalty was an effective deterrent, as did other hon. Members. The death sentence is like an insurance policy. Hon. Members who argue for the retention of the clause must ask

themselves whether we can afford to run the risk of removing that deterrent. If the effect of such offences were small, we probably could. However, the offences involved could have a major effect on the operation concerned, such as the outcome of a war and, thus, the safety of the state. We cannot be sure of the degree of deterrence or how any individual mind might be affected. The Government believe that it is right to maintain the possibility of the death penalty as the ultimate sanction for service offences.
The right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) raised the question of the IRA and the position in Northern Ireland. It can be argued that the IRA falls within the definition of "the enemy" under the defence discipline Acts. It is true that service men in Northern Ireland could, theoretically, be prosecuted for the offences that attract the death penalty. I am absolutely clear that, in the exceptionally unlikely event of the death sentence being passed in the hypothetical case in Northern Ireland to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, it would certainly be commuted by the Secretary of State for Defence.
The right hon. Gentleman also raised the question of the person who simply could not face up to the idea of fighting. Taking no action would not fall into the group of five service offences; however, an action likely to imperil the success of an operation would. Again, the death sentence is only one option that is open to the court martial. Those who "chickened out", or refused to "go over the top", would not be committing one of the five offences.
My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) mentioned double standards. As I understood it, his argument was that, if we were not prepared to agree to the death penalty for the killing of policemen, we should abolish it altogether. That strikes me as a strange argument. If he holds that view, surely my hon. Friend should hold out for the day when the House may change its mind about the death penalty for the killing of policemen. Abolishing the death penalty altogether would, as far as I can see, remove any chance of its being reintroduced for the killing of policemen. It is not beyond possibility that, at some time in the future, after a spate of police killings, the House might change its mind. If at that stage no death penalty existed for any offence, it would be very difficult for it to be reintroduced at all.
7.30 pm
The hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) asked why a distinction should be made between war and peace. The offences concerned may attract the death penalty only when there is an intention to assist the enemy. By their very nature, such offences are likely to be committed only in wartime. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) that it would be extremely difficult to draft legislation that applied only in wartime. It is very difficult to define wartime—the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing are also relevant here. It is hard to be precise about when a state of war exists.
The Government have concluded that it is necessary to retain a degree of flexibility, because it is impossible to provide for every situation that might arise, relying on the safeguards provided by the use of this extreme penally. My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing was also worried about the definition of a state of hostilities. Surely we know when a state of hostilities exists, even if war has


not been declared: that is reasonably straightforward. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) raised the question of the declaration of war. It has happened rarely in the recent past. There was no declaration of war over the Falklands or the Gulf, but the existence of a state of hostilities is pretty clear and understandable to most people.

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Miss Boothroyd. I think that you know what it is. It is very difficult to hear what the Minister is saying because of the number of people who are standing beyond the Bar talking.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I was so enthralled by what the Minister was saying that I did not notice, but, if that is the case, hon. Members standing below the Bar who do not intend to sit down should continue their conversations quietly, so that the rest of us can listen to this important winding-up speech.

Mr. Hamilton: You flatter me, Miss Boothroyd.
As has been said by the hon. Member for Motherwell, North, this is no time to re-run the arguments about capital punishment. It is worth reminding ourselves, however, that in December the House voted to retain the mandatory death sentence for the crime of treason, and the crimes that we are now considering are very closely related to treason. There will be a free vote tonight, and there is no question of the payroll vote or anyone else being whipped to support the clause.
I hope that, when hon. Members on both sides of the Committee exercise their consciences, they will ask themselves whether it is sensible, if we are to change our whole attitude to capital punishment for treason-related offences, to start with the Armed Forces Bill. If it is right to remove the death sentence for treason—and that is debatable—it must surely be right to remove it initially for civilian offences, and then to review the position of the armed forces.
The hon. Member for Motherwell, North referred to our heroes returning from the Gulf—and they were heroes indeed. It goes without saying that none of those men has been charged with any of these offences, but they were doubtless reassured to know that, if any of their colleagues had transgressed—given the enormity of the result that might have followed, namely, the death of a large number of them through enemy action—the penalty was in place and provided them with protection. As my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury said, this is a question of keeping faith with our service men. I am sure that they do not want any change in the law.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 124, Noes 228.

Division No. 175]
[7.35 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)


Alton, David
Bermingham, Gerald


Amos, Alan
Blunkett, David


Anderson, Donald
Boateng, Paul


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Body, Sir Richard


Armstrong, Hilary
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Ashby, David
Buck, Sir Antony


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Caborn, Richard


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Barron, Kevin
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Beckett, Margaret
Cartwright, John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)





Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Leadbitter, Ted


Cohen, Harry
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Corbett, Robin
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Corbyn, Jeremy
McAllion, John


Cryer, Bob
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Cummings, John
McKelvey, William


Darling, Alistair
McLeish, Henry


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Maclennan, Robert


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
McNamara, Kevin


Dewar, Donald
McWilliam, John


Dixon, Don
Madden, Max


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Meale, Alan


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Miscampbell, Norman


Eadie, Alexander
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Eastham, Ken
Morgan, Rhodri


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Faulds, Andrew
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Fearn, Ronald
Mullin, Chris


Fishburn, John Dudley
Pendry, Tom


Flynn, Paul
Pike, Peter L.


Foster, Derek
Quin, Ms Joyce


Foulkes, George
Radice, Giles


Fraser, John
Raffan, Keith


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Randall, Stuart


George, Bruce
Redmond, Martin


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Golding, Mrs Llin
Reid, Dr John


Gordon, Mildred
Richardson, Jo


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Robertson, George


Ground, Patrick
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Hain, Peter
Rowe, Andrew


Hardy, Peter
Sedgemore, Brian


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Haynes, Frank
Shersby, Michael


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Short, Clare


Home Robertson, John
Skinner, Dennis


Hood, Jimmy
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Soley, Clive


Howells, Geraint
Stern, Michael


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Strang, Gavin


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Vaz, Keith


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Wallace, James


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Ward, John


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Wheeler, Sir John


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Wigley, Dafydd


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Kennedy, Charles
Winnick, David


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil



Kirkwood, Archy
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lambie, David
Mrs. Marie Fyfe and


Lawrence, Ivan
Mr. Harry Barnes.


NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Alexander, Richard
Brazier, Julian


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Allason, Rupert
Browne, John (Winchester)


Amess, David
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Arbuthnot, James
Burns, Simon


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Butcher, John


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Butler, Chris


Atkinson, David
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Carrington, Matthew


Baldry, Tony
Carttiss, Michael


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Bellingham, Henry
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Bendall, Vivian
Chapman, Sydney


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Chope, Christopher


Bevan, David Gilroy
Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Clark, Rt Hon Sir William


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Colvin, Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bottomley, Peter
Cope, Rt Hon John


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)
Cormack, Patrick


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Cran, James


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Day, Stephen






Devlin, Tim
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Dicks, Terry
Mates, Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Maude, Hon Francis


Dunn, Bob
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Durant, Sir Anthony
Mills, Iain


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Evennett, David
Mitchell, Sir David


Fallon, Michael
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Moss, Malcolm


Fookes, Dame Janet
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mudd, David


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Neale, Sir Gerrard


Fox, Sir Marcus
Needham, Richard


French, Douglas
Nelson, Anthony


Gale, Roger
Neubert, Sir Michael


Gardiner, Sir George
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Gill, Christopher
Nicholls, Patrick


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Goodlad, Alastair
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Norris, Steve


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Gorst, John
Page, Richard


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Paice, James


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Patnick, Irvine


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Gregory, Conal
Patten, Rt Hon John


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Pawsey, James


Hague, William
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hannam, John
Price, Sir David


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Redwood, John


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Rhodes James, Robert


Harris, David
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Hawkins, Christopher
Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)


Hayward, Robert
Roe, Mrs Marion


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Rost, Peter


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela


Hill, James
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Hind, Kenneth
Sackville, Hon Tom


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hunt, Rt Hon David
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hunter, Andrew
Shelton, Sir William


Irvine, Michael
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Jack, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Janman, Tim
Sims, Roger


Jessel, Toby
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Kilfedder, James
Speed, Keith


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Speller, Tony


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Squire, Robin


Knapman, Roger
Stanbrook, Ivor


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Steen, Anthony


Knowles, Michael
Stevens, Lewis


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Stokes, Sir John


Lord, Michael
Sumberg, David


Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


McCrindle, Sir Robert
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Temple-Morris, Peter


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Maclean, David
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Thorne, Neil


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Thurnham, Peter


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Malins, Humfrey
Tracey, Richard


Mans, Keith
Tredinnick, David


Marland, Paul
Trippier, David


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Trotter, Neville





Twinn, Dr Ian
Widdecombe, Ann


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Wilkinson, John


Viggers, Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Wood, Timothy


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Yeo, Tim


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)



Watts, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Wells, Bowen
Mr. John M. Taylor and


Whitney, Ray
Mr. David Davis.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clauses 18 to 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28

SHORT TITLE AND COMMENCEMENT

Amendment made: No. 2, in page 24, line 43, leave out `1st September 1991' and insert `1st January 1992'.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Clause 28, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.

Bill reported, with amendments.

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It is right that the Bill should be generally well received in the House because it makes improvements to the service discipline Acts, many of which bring service law more closely into line with civilian law. That is particularly true of the provisons in parts II and III of the Bill relating to young offenders and children at risk in service families overseas. In this way, and by the careful scrutiny given to discipline matters generally during the passage of the Bill through the House, I believe that the Acts can continue to command the respect and confidence of the service men, service women and civilians to whom they apply.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) chaired the Select Committee on the Bill with unfailing courtesy and fairness. The Committee conducted not only a thorough examination of the Bill itself, but a wide-ranging review of matters related to discipline in the armed forces. Its report makes a number of important recommendations for the future which will all be given careful consideration and be the subject of a full response in due course.
It is our responsibility to ensure that the system of discipline, on which the efficiency and effectiveness of the work of the armed forces so much depends, strikes a sensible balance between the rights of service men and women as citizens and the extra constraints which must necessarily be imposed. I am confident that the Bill will serve to ensure that the service discipline Acts continue to meet the needs of the services and command their confidence. I commend it to the House.

Dr. Reid: Naturally, I am disappointed that clause 17 has been removed; it was an important part of the Bill and probably the most important part of the reforms to the service discipline Acts. However, I predict that, once the recommendations of the Law Commission on the death penalty are known, there may be a majority of Members in the Aye Lobby.
Despite that disappointment, I promised earlier that we would not be obstructive about the discipline Acts incorporated in the Bill. Therefore, we shall not raise objections and we shall not vote against the Bill. That is important because, as the Minister said, the quinquennial review gives us the opportunity to reappraise the service discipline Acts and procedures in the light of practical experience, and in the context of changes in the civilian law and in public opinion and perception. Such reappraisals are important and debates such as this provide a vital opportunity to conduct them. Therefore, I should not like the debate to pass without making one or two comments.
Discipline and order are integral parts of the quality of the armed forces, whether in peacetime or during hostilities. Of all forms of discipline applicable to our armed forces, by far the most efficient, effective and prevalent is self-discipline. We should like it to be recorded at the outset that, although we have spent time in Committee and on the Floor of the House discussing breaches in rules and regulations, and the punishment and penalty for those breaches, such measures are applicable only in a small number of cases involving service men and women. For the vast majority of such cases, the best, and often the only, discipline necessary is that which springs from the service men and women's own determination, commitment and dedication, for which we give them credit.
Where the service discipline Acts have to be applied, it is important that they are seen to be practicable, efficient and, above all, fair. We in Parliament have no less a duty to our service men and women—simply because they voluntarily place themselves under the jurisdiction of military authority—than to civilians. It can be argued that, precisely because service personnel voluntarily accept the sacrifices that such a military regime entails, it is our duty to scrutinise the Acts and the Bill to a greater degree than other legislation, if that is possible.
I believe that, with one or two significant exceptions, the Select Committee acquitted itself well. The starting point for our deliberations was the premise that, wherever possible, forces law should approximate as closely as possible to civilian law. Therefore, it is right that the legal advances incorporated in two major Acts—the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the Children Act 1989—should be enshrined in the Bill and extended to the services.
Therefore, we welcome the provisions in parts II and III of the Bill which extend the obligations of explanation to courts martial and standing civilian courts where young offenders are involved and impose a greater burden of consideration on military courts in relation to custodial sentences and young offenders. Part II also allows for compensation payments and ensures that they are given precedence above fines. It enhances the scope for the imposition of compensation payments. We also welcome those advances.
Part III reflects the growing concern about the protection of children felt throughout the country in recent years. I believe that there has been wide agreement in Committee and throughout the House that the general thrust of the changes—largely drawn from the Children Act, but modified to take account of service life—will be beneficial to all involved.
Those factors represent the major thrust of the changes in the Bill, and the Opposition support and welcome its provisions. The problem is that the Bill does not go very far. There are a number of issues integral to and related to discipline, order and morale that the Opposition would like to have seen addressed. Thankfully, most of those issues were addressed in Committee and, in some cases, progress was made. That shows the particular benefit of such an ad hoc Select Committee, rare—some would say, peculiar—though it may be, and I hope that such a procedure will continue in future.
I have been advised that the appropriate time for commenting on the wider issues related to the Bill, but not specifically covered by it, is during the debate on the continuation order. Therefore, I shall hope to speak then. Meanwhile, the Opposition will not vote against the Bill which, no doubt, will proceed on its way through the House with alacrity.

Mr. Wilkinson: I take this opportunity to thank, not only my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, but the officials and service men of the Ministry of Defence, who greatly assisted Select Committee members with their inquiries and were hospitable and informative when they made field visits in this country and in Germany.
Like the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), I believe that this form of parliamentary procedure is an admirable legislative mechanism. Unlike the normal Standing Committee procedure, it enables hon. Members to take the advice of those professionally engaged in the relevant activity—in this case, the maintenance of good service discipline, order and morale.
I had the privilege of chairing the Committee. The report that we produced will summarise all the points that I could make on Third Reading, so I shall not make them now. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Minister and his Ministry will respond to the recommendations that we made, which we believe speak for themselves. That said, I wish the Bill godspeed and a satisfactory Third Reading.

8 pm

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I join in congratulating the Select Committee and its Chairman on the production of a report that is of great assistance to those right hon. and hon. Members who have an interest in the matter but did not have the privilege of serving on the Committee.
It is clear from any reading of the notes of evidence that the cross-examination was, from time to time, robust. However, it was obviously undertaken with the best intention—that of eliciting the most accurate, helpful, and up-to-date information. The notes of evidence make interesting and illuminating reading, giving as they do a clear insight into the thinking of many of those within the Ministry of Defence who are most directly concerned with service discipline matters.
I want to touch on a matter that probably would not fall under the continuation order, but relates to the consolidation of existing service discipline legislation. It is axiomatic that ignorance of the law is no excuse. It has always seemed to me to be a necessary part of that axiom that the law should be readily ascertainable and easily understandable. For the moment, that cannot be said of the myriad bits of legislation in which provisions relating


to service discipline are to be found. It is notable that one of those who gave evidence to the Committee strongly expressed the opinion that it would be in the interests of all if, at an early date, some consolidation and revision of that legislation were to take place.
I hope that the Minister understands the importance of that comment. Such action may not lie entirely within his power. Other Departments may have a more direct influence on the speed with which such consolidation and revision can be achieved. However, there is little point in creating a code or structure of service discipline of which we can be proud if we cannot be proud of the circumstances in which it can be understood and readily ascertained. That is one of the Committee's most important recommendations, and one which bears precisely and strongly on the Bill.
There is nothing more that I can usefully add, except that I shall not endeavour to delay the progress of the Bill, which seems entirely right and proper. It may not go far enough, but as far as it does go, it represents a comprehensive piece of work by those responsible for it. As it embodies some of the principles and changes to service law that the passage of time has made necessary, the sooner that the Bill passes through the House, the better.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Armed Forces (Discipline)

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): I beg to move,
That the draft Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 7th June, be approved.
The purpose of the order is to continue in force the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955, and the Naval Discipline Act 1957, which together provide the statutory basis for discipline in the three services, for a further four months from 31 August, which is the date on which they would otherwise expire unless renewed before then either by primary legislation or by Order in Council. Under the Armed Forces Act 1986, no Order in Council may ex tend the Acts beyond 31 December 1991.
Over the past few months, the House has had the opportunity to consider service disciplinary procedures in depth during its consideration of the Armed Forces Bill. The first purpose of the Bill is to make provision for the Acts to continue in force for a further five years from the date on which they would otherwise expire. The House will be aware that, unless renewed by Act of Parliament or by Order in Council, the three service discipline Acts will currently expire on 31 August 1991. While I have every expectation that the Armed Forces Bill will be enacted before the summer recess, the order will simply ensure that there is no possibility that the Acts will expire without having been renewed. This is a prudent measure, and I invite the House to approve the order.

Dr. John Reid: As I indicated earlier, we will not vote against the order, but we have some misgivings about it. We believe that there have been missed opportunities in Committee, not specifically in respect of the Bill, but of provisions that could have been added but which were missing from the start.
I was taught as a small boy that there are sins of commission and sins of omission. If the Bill has avoided any great sins of commission, it is guilty of sins of omission. That has been rectified to some extent by the work of the Committee and the report that it issued. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who unfortunately is not in his place, who said earlier that the Committee made a number of recommendations and that he looked forward to the Minister's responding to them.
In one or two instances, the Committee was wise enough to suggest a deadline by which a response was expected. It was also flexible enough to suggest a timetable in respect of longer-term items—though it may find that the response comes not from the Minister of State for the Armed Forces but from myself or from one of my hon. Friends, as we may be in power by the time that such a response falls due.
The changes that the Bill makes are welcome, but it does not go very far. A number of important issues are perennially raised in the House, and are raised quinquennially in Committee, but the Bill fails to add ress them. To be fair to the Government—as the Minister knows, I always try to be fair to them—a number of those issues would be difficult, if not impossible, to incorporate into the form that the Bill takes. Some are a matter of


regulation, administration or administrative practice, rather than of service law proper. However, other aspects could have been incorporated into the Bill and such omissions can be accounted for only by Government obstinacy or prejudice—or, in some cases, a combination of both.
Thankfully, those faults in what count as the higher echelons of the Conservative command structure did not always infect the foot soldiers in Committee, so on occasions we were able to make more advances in Committee than we could with the Government. However, even then we were unable to make much more progress than in previous years. In other instances the Government foot soldiers on the Committee, even when liberated by the absence on occasions of their Minister, could not be enticed in the direction of progress.
The Committee's recommendation that the Ministry of Defence should reconsider its opposition to ethnic monitoring of service personnel was a major step forward, and it is one which my party has urged for some time. Ensuring that our armed forces reflect the ethnic diversity of society at large is an aim which is based on the principle of racial equality and on the practical necessity of the recruitment and retention of service personnel in difficult demographic circumstances.
I am the first to admit that the Government have already made some move in the direction of combating racial discrimination and harassment, and of encouraging ethnic recruitment to the armed forces, and I pay them credit for that work.
It is ludicrous that the Ministry of Defence, which monitors the religious composition of the Ulster Defence Regiment in the north of Ireland—for the best of reasons, I hasten to add—and which maintains a system of ethnic monitoring for its civil servants, trenchantly refuses to extend ethnic monitoring to the armed forces. The Ministry should not have been allowed for so long to evade that responsibility for the armed forces. I hope that the Committee's recommendation will be expeditiously acted upon.
The Committee also recommends that the Ministry of Defence should consider how best to identify instances of racial harassment and keep records. In the past the Ministry has shown some willingness to tackle that problem, but, in the absence of statistical information, the MOD was fighting with one hand tied behind its back and it was impossible to judge to what extent the Ministry's actions were effective. The recommendation, if implemented, will free the Ministry from that self-imposed handicap and allow it to confront racial discrimination with the necessary vigour and determination. I am sure hon. Members agree that there is no place in the British armed forces for racial prejudice or discrimination.
We strongly support the proposed measures to protect the youngest of our service men and women, although such protection is no reflection on their courage or commitment. We entirely agree with the Committee's conclusion that there should at least be a presumption that those aged under 18 should not be sent on active service overseas unless there is some overriding requirement for their particular skills in the defence of the country. We expect some practical proposals on that by the time of the defence estimates. The Minister will be pleased to know,

given what is assumed to be the current timetable, that he will still be Minister of State for the Armed Forces by the time those estimates appear. A Government statement at that time will prove that the Ministry of Defence is capable of making some sort of announcement in this area, if not in others.
We entirely concur with the view that the terms of enlistment and, in particular, the terms of compulsory retention of recruited minors should be re-examined. We desperately need to get away from the Ministry's attitude and weltanschauung of trying to solve the problems of personnel retention in a volunteer service by methods that are applicable to a conscript service. The Committee was wise enough to set a timetable and will expect practical proposals by the time of the next continuation order. The Minister may not be lucky enough to announce such proposals.
The armed forces' attitude to homosexuality has been a vexatious issue for every quinquennial review Committee, especially because it is not just homosexual activity but homosexuality itself which is forbidden by service law. Any service man or woman who is found to be homosexual, even if non-practising, is liable to be discharged from the service. The Committee's recommendation, accepted somewhat surprisingly by both sides of the Committee, that homosexual activity of a kind that is legal under civilian law should not constitute an offence under service law is a small but significant mark of progress. The proposal would not prohibit discharge from the service, but at least it decriminalises homosexuality and prevents some of the ignominy of current procedures under which files are sent to the police for what is regarded as an offence under service law but which is no longer regarded as an offence under civilian law. That is a small step, but the Minister and Conservative Members are to be congratulated on being prepared to take it in the face of traditional prejudice. Measures carry a great deal more authority outside the House and have much more effect when it can be shown that there has been consensus, a non-partisan agreement, on the importance of issues and the necessity to move forward with them.
As is obvious from the Committee report, everyone recognises that the present policy, even with the small improvement that I have mentioned, causes great distress. More importantly from the point of view of the services, everybody recognises that the policy causes the loss to the services of men and women of undoubted competence and good character. The report says that that is beyond dispute.
The problem is to find a way forward which avoids that loss and which allows for the nature and circumstances of the armed forces which, I accept, are different from those in civilian life. If we do not find a solution, personnel will continue to be lost to the armed forces and people will be open to blackmail and will suffer unnecessary distress. That view was shared by most if not all members of the Committee.
The conflicting requirements of this issue will be resolved only by a deeper and wider examination. Even though it is not recommended in the report, we urge the Minister to consider the establishment of an inquiry composed of lay and legal people as well as military personnel to clarify the issues, to compare practice among our allies, and to present options for progress. That would be a meaningful step from the little progress that we have started.
Two other matters need attention. The first is the composition of courts martial. It is a cornerstone of British justice that an accused is entitled to trial by his or her peers. The most glaring exception to that, apart from the special courts that have been established from time to time in the north of Ireland, is courts martial at which the weighing of evidence, the arrival at a judgment and the passing of sentence is the exclusive prerogative of the officer class of the British armed forces.
I mean no disservice when I say that, despite considerable progress, more than half our officers have social backgrounds that are utterly alien to those upon whom they sit in judgment. Fewer than one fifth of the officers have experienced the service background of those whom they judge, because they have not come up through the ranks. They may be well placed by training and background to understand the legal side of the proceedings and to dispense legal judgments, but are they well enough placed to understand the social background and to dispense justice at courts martial composed exclusively of officers? The attributes that are necessary to exercise leadership are not necessarily the only qualities that are necessary to achieve equity and justice in the armed forces.
Before the Minister takes fright and reaches for his revolver, I should explain that we are not suggesting anything as revolutionary as rank and file courts. For the reasons that we have already given, we believe that many courts martial would benefit from the presence of a senior non-commissioned officer. We are not suggesting that it should be obligatory, but only that courts martial should have the ability to co-opt an NCO as a supplementary member. Such a member could bring a particular background, both social and armed services, to bear on what are often complex problems.
Furthermore, such an option would enhance the quality of courts martial. I cannot, for the life of me, understand the Government's objections to this proposal, although I have listened with great care to their objections. I am reluctantly forced to the conclusion that there is no rational decision behind their refusal, but that, for all the fine words of their leader, somewhere, hidden away, the spirit of class rule is alive and well, even if temporarily dormant, and living in the Ministry of Defence. I have no doubt that, in the course of time, as with so many other attitudes embraced by the Government, this one will be washed up on the shores of history as the anachronism that it is.
My next subject—forces representation—is again a hardy annual on which the Government deploy circular arguments. We are told that there is no demand for forces representation. When we ask the simple question, "How do you know, as there is no representative body?", we are told that the forces are consulted by questionnaire. We then ask whether there is a question about forces representation and are told that there is not, but there is a space where members can put suggestions on forces representation if they so wish.
That is what used to be called inertia selling. Inertia selling of encyclopedias and pornographic material was outlawed some years ago. I cannot understand why the Ministry of Defence still accepts inertia selling in this case, when it is left to those who need representation to bring the issue forward, in the absence of any representative body. Some form of representative body, perhaps circumscribed by rules that prevent it from taking industrial action, perhaps akin to the Police Federation, would be of

undoubted benefit not only to service men and women but to the armed forces as a whole. Although we have been considering a Bill on discipline, morale is, and has been for many years, central to discipline.

Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: Would the hon. Gentleman accept that his argument about the representation of soldiers in a staff federation or something similar has a direct analogy with membership of a political party inasmuch as any member of the armed forces can be a member of a political party, but, by convention, takes no active part in the political activities of the party?

Dr. Reid: Yes, I accept that analogy. However, there is a problem, which will be obvious from the evidence. No one can tell me what constitutes activity, either in the membership of a political party or in a trade union.
In Committee, I asked whether service men and women were, for example, entitled to be members of the British Medical Association if they were doctors. I was told that they are allowed to be members, but not active members. I cannot find out what constitutes activity. Is it attending meetings, or accepting a post? It would be easier to circumscribe by definition an organisation that was set up for a specific purpose. One cannot do that with a specific party or the BMA, because such bodies have a membership that goes much wider than the armed forces. However, the activities of a federation exclusively related to the armed forces could be circumscribed. It is much more difficult to circumscribe, let alone define, the activities of members of the armed forces who belong to an organisation.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: I think that I can help the lion. Gentleman in relation to the BMA. Service men can be members of the BMA and there is a BMA services committee. Knowing the way that the hon. Gentleman addresses these matters, I am sure that he will agree that we are talking about convention and common sense. There is no problem with membership of bodies such as the BMA.

Dr. Reid: I did not mean to ascribe a subversive motive to anybody working in the BMA. I was asking how one defined what constitutes activity within the BMA or a political party.
This issue is important because of its context. Representation will become more important because morale will become more important. Morale is becoming more important because the armed forces are going through traumatic changes. Eventually, we shall find out what "Options for Change" means for the British armed forces. We have had one or two teasers and I am sure that, somewhere in the Ministry of Defence, there is a strategic analysis on which policy is based. But then I have always been optimistic about the world, even if I have been pessimistic about the intellect.
Irrespective of which Government are in power, there will be substantive changes to the armed forces in the next few years. My worry is that they are being tackled An a rather piecemeal and cost-driven way. We may end up not only with a smaller budget for defence but with a redistribution of resources within that budget that is not based on strategic criteria and, because of a lack of a full review, omission of any consideration of the quality of life for service personnel. In other words, what is missing is the


three elements of fighting power, as defined in the British military doctrine: the conceptual element, the material element and—this is my worry—the morale element.
If, as I believe, the Government are not paying nearly enough attention to what one does with 40,000 soldiers, sailors and airmen, three quarters of whom do not own their own homes and will not get a council house and will not be retrained, and if we leave Hong Kong, Belize and perhaps even Germany, what will be the raison d'etre of the forces and their personnel? In these difficult circumstances, a representative body for armed forces personnel might be useful because it could tell us of their main reasons for insecurity, their fear and their concerns in a period of dramatic change.
Therefore, as a matter of principle and practice and of concrete assistance in the present circumstances, the Minister and the Government should have shown more sympathy towards the idea of a staff federation. That idea has been rejected; I hope that it will not be rejected indefinitely.
I have described the main points that the Opposition would like to have been included in the order and that were not included. However, the provisions in the order, as far as they go, do not present any great difficulties for us, so we do not intend to vote against the continuation order. It makes sense as a fall-back position and none of us would benefit if the discipline Acts for the three services were to fall in the absence of the continuation order.

Mr. Tony Banks: I want to raise a number of issues before we consider whether the continuation order should be approved. I want to raise disciplinary matters that were covered in the Select Committee report on the Armed Forces Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) raised the questions of racial harassment and of racial discrimination. If the Ministry of Defence refuses to identify cases of racial harassment and if it does not monitor them, it can pretend that racial harassment does not exist in the armed forces. We all know that the contrary is true.
I remember that we had difficulties in getting the Metropolitan police to start taking seriously the incidence of racial harassment in Greater London. They felt that it was a problem that was best left covered for a variety of reasons—some good, but most bad. Racial harassment was generally seen as being a matter of disputes between neighbours and nothing really racial. It took us a long time to convince the Metropolitan police that they needed to begin to become involved in monitoring racial harassment cases. Now that they do monitor such cases, their clear-up rate and the way in which they apply their forces are highly commendable. There is still a long way to go, but we have managed to get somewhere. The same pressure should now be put on the Ministry of Defence. Although the Ministry has accepted in certain respects the need for the ethnic monitoring of recruitment, it must take matters a lot further. Racial harassment and racial discrimination are linked, so it is important for the Ministry of Defence to examine cases of racial harassment.
On Friday, I went to the Theatre Royal, Stratford to see a play called "Black Poppies". It originated from a group

of black actors who worked for the royal national theatre workshop and is based on the real experiences of black service men in our armed forces. Some 40 hours of tape recordings were taken from those who were either current or former service men and a play was devised from that. It was a powerful play. One can often get powerful messages across through the arts, so it is a great pity that the play has finished its run. It was highly successful and played in the east end of London to large black audiences who recognised the validity of what was being said. The important point is that the play was authentic. It did not involve someone adapting the news or using poetic licence to try to push a particular point. It was based on the personal experiences of black service men. It was powerful theatre and presented a powerful argument.
The run finished on Saturday and I very much regret that I cannot ask the Minister to come at my expense to the Theatre Royal, Stratford in my constituency to see the play. If he did, he would get as angry as I did on Friday when I realised that discrimination and harassment take place in our armed forces. People who volunteer for our professional forces find themselves abused, attacked and treated in a way in which no human being should be treated. I understand that the racism is often institutionalised. Officers, especially non-commissioned officers, are clearly involved. The stories in the play were so true that they put across a powerful message.
It is important that the Ministry of Defence takes the matter seriously. I am disappointed that, when it responded to the report, it did not say more about what would be done. It was not an official response, but a response in the course of discussions. I am disappointed and I am sure that those who served on the Select Committee were also disappointed.
The obverse of racial harassment is racial discrimination in the armed forces. The two issues are inextricably linked. There is no ethnic monitoring in the armed forces. I asked a question about that recently. The matter intrigued me, perhaps because I am a generally nosey person. I asked what the highest rank achieved by a black service man or woman was because I was impressed to see that General Colin Powell had made it right to the top in the United States. The Minister replied that the Ministry did not know the answer because it did not use ethnic monitoring. One does not need to operate ethnic monitoring to find the answer. It is pretty self-evident whether someone is black and it would not take long to work out the answer by examining the armed services. The fact is that the Government simply do not know and they do not appear to want to know, which is wrong for a number of reasons.
The main reason is that if there is to be ethnic monitoring of recruitment, one cannot see whether recruitment is successful if one does not continue to monitor the person right the way through the armed forces. Why, for example, do black people leave the armed forces? I should have thought that the Minister of Defence would have wanted the answer to that question which is central to its considerations of further policy. The only way to answer that question is to monitor ethnically. If there is no ethnic monitoring, someone who leaves is recorded merely as another serving officer who has left. Many do leave. If we do not know whether it was a black individual who left, we cannot know whether the ethnic monitoring of recruitment is working. There should be a debriefing process in the Ministry of Defence and people


should be asked why they are leaving. The answer may be, "Because I cannot stand the racial harassment and the racial victimisation" in the regiment or platoon. The Ministry cannot at present take the necessary remedial action.
If the Government are saying that they are not prepared to have ethnic monitoring, they are saying that the problem of racial harassment and victimisation in the armed forces does not exist. Any senior serving officer to whom one talks will say that he does not allow it to exist. But it seems to exist at a level at which some of the most senior officers are unaware of the problem, as is the Minister. I assume that if he was aware of the problem, he would take dramatic steps to deal with it.
The matter of women in the services is also covered in the report. I want to link that point with the courts martial which were also mentioned in the report. A dramatic case hit all our newspapers last week. It concerned two young people who were court martialled for being found together in quarters in which they should not have been together. I was surprised. I recently asked whether all courts martial were held in public. That shows my level of knowledge, although I believe that the only way to acquire knowledge is to admit ignorance. I did not realise that all courts martial were held in public. The two young people had committed no crime in terms of the civilian world. They would not have been in a civilian court, yet because of the disciplinary procedures of the armed forces, they found themselves at a court martial. They then found that they were subject to something much worse than a court martial—trial by media and by newspapers. The headlines in the tabloids and in the more serious newspapers were appalling. I will not mention those two young people's names because they have suffered enough. Indeed, I suspect that both their lives are ruined as of this moment. The Minister should take such matters into account.
The matter arose specifically from the publicity surrounding the non-touching rule as it affected serving officers in the Gulf and what would be done when Wrens were serving on battleships in the Gulf. One knew that this incident would be regarded as a good story by those swollen-nosed hacks who frequent Wapping but one did not really expect to see the sort of copy that actually appeared in The Sun. which I must put on record. The report is headed
Wren's Nude Romp with Lt".
The House will note the sexist nature and language of that headline. It did not refer, for example, to a "nude lieutenant's romp with Wren." The story read:
A randy Wren was caught naked with a dashing navy lieutenant".
You see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the woman is randy whereas the lieutenant—the man—is dashing. One can see from the headline and from the opening words that the blame lies entirely with the woman.
I do not propose to titillate hon. Members; I am sure that they will have seen the story in the newspapers. The newspaper showed pictures of the young woman concerned, and those pictures are remarkably clear. I do not know where those concerned got them from, but they looked like studio portraits. That was not the case with the pictures of the so-called dashing lieutenant. I have sympathy for him as well because I would not like to be stuck on a ship somewhere in the Gulf away from my good lady wife—although I hasten to assure her, should she ever get round to reading Hansard, that I would be utterly loyal

to her. The fact is, however, that the picture of the dashing lieutenant is incredibly fuzzy. It would be difficult to recognise such a dashing lieutenant or, indeed, such a dashing lieutenant's wife—that picture, too, is remarkably fuzzy. I do not criticise. I congratulate those concerned on their good fortune, but one is bound to contrast their pictures with that of the Wren. The newspapers were trying to take advantage of that story to sell their disgusting tabloids and to titillate their readers—to make the incident seem salacious and disreputable and to make it look as though it was the woman's fault.
The couple were found naked in bed "without reasonable cause". It seems to me that, if one is going to be in bed, one might as well be naked. Indeed, being naked seems to me to be the most reasonable cause one could have for being in bed if one has someone else with one.
I have described the preposterous language used. The effect of it was that those two people—especially the Wren —have had their lives ruined. That is absolutely disgraceful. They should have had the option of having the court martial heard in camera. I understand why it is necessary at times to hold a court martial in public. Otherwise, all sorts of accusations might be made about behind-closed-doors deliberations and kangaroo courts. I may well be the sort of Member of Parliament who makes such accusations. But we are talking about a case in which two people found themselves charged with an offence which in civilian law would attract no penalty whatever, and in which there was no question of national security being affected. That being so, why could not the couple opt to have the court martial held in camera? That would have spared them the humiliation of undergoing the trial-by-newspaper that we have witnessed in the past few days. I hope that the Minister will contemplate that when we next consider revising matters of discipline within the armed services. If he does not, the incidence of such cases will increase.
I am a fairly naive and trusting sort of chap. I cannot tell whether the Army or the Ministry of Defence deliberately connived at the glare of publicity given to the two service people, on the ground, perhaps, that it had been argued on television and in the newspapers that the wives of serving officers about to embark on ships on which Wrens would be serving were worried about the impact on their menfolk. Those two young people may have been sacrificed to satisfy the partners of serving officers that in any future case exemplary treatment would again be handed out. Perhaps the argument is that, if those young people have their lives destroyed, it is merely a price that they will have to pay and that their case may act as a deterrent. Perhaps I am being over-cynical at this point but that argument was put to me when I argued that the case should have required a degree of understanding, flexibility and feeling from the Ministry of Defence, which should have prevented the two young people from being exposed to the sort of coverage that they got for doing something that we know is very natural. I hope to God that they do not extend such rules to Members of Parliament. If they do, an awful lot of hon. Members are likely to be very embarrassed indeed.
My last point arising from the report concerns homosexuality in the armed forces—a subject to which my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North referred. As my hon. Friend said—and it needs to be emphasised time and again—even if a man or a woman is not a practising homosexual, he or she can still be committing an


offence. I do not know how the necessary information is obtained. I do not know how someone discovers that someone else is a non-practising homosexual in the armed forces. Perhaps the information is discovered in a letter from a loved one. Are letters read?

Dr. Reid: Perhaps I may assist my hon. Friend. The man or woman in question may not be ashamed of being a homosexual and may tell his or her commanding officer. That is the most simple way.

Mr. Banks: There is no reason why such a person should feel ashamed of being a homosexual. Nevertheless, he or she would be pretty ill-advised to tell a commanding officer unless that commanding officer was similarly disposed. A commanding officer who was told would then be privy to information that he or she might not wish to keep to himself or herself on the ground that, if it emerged at a later date that he or she had been informed by such a person—who might perhaps have stopped being a non-practising homosexual and become a practising homosexual—that officer would be in difficulty. I would strongly urge any practising homosexual member of the armed forces not to go and tell a commanding officer because, apart from anything else, that would put the commanding officer in a very difficult positon.
When homosexuals have been dismissed from the armed forces—something that I utterly deplore—it usually happens without the publicity surrounding the two heterosexuals in the case to which I have referred in detail.
Sexual orientation should not he used as a ground for disbarring people from the armed forces. The Spartans almost made a virtue out of homosexuality; indeed, that was probably one of the qualifications to become a Spartan and "Spartan" is still regarded as a by-word for a fighting force. One is assured that most Spartans were practising homosexuals. The idea was that they were more likely to die fighting for the person whom they loved if that person was standing next to them than if that person were sitting safely at home. Clearly, we can no longer prove the point, but it appears that the fighting ability—perish the thought; I do not like talk about fighting ability—of a gay man or lesbian woman is in no way impaired by his or her sexual orientation.
In the report the Stonewall group makes it quite clear that other NATO countries do not treat homosexuals in their armed forces in the same way as we do. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North made the same point with regard to capital punishment. If other armed forces, whose fighting quality, discipline and so on are at least as good as ours, can do without capital punishment and without criminalising homosexuality, surely we can advance tentatively into the latter part of the 20th century and accept that we can do exactly the same. The report states that the armed forces
are no more lenient of lesbianism than of homosexuality in men.
That is very strange because lesbianism does not exist as a criminal offence thanks to Queen Victoria who could not possibly believe that two women could get up to such an act. I have news for Queen Victoria: there are a lot of lesbians in this country and, I suspect, a number in the armed forces. It is difficult to accept that there can be a disciplinary service offence that does not exist as a criminal offence in civilian life.
At the moment, there is discrimination against gay men and lesbian women in the armed forces. I imagine that they have to put up with an awful lot. I listen to, rather than understand, the arguments advanced by the Government and by MOD officials for not allowing homosexuality in the armed forces. They obviously believe that the heterosexuals in the armed forces would be put at risk. I would have thought that the threat was more the other way; if a barracks was aware that a male soldier was gay, he would be in a very difficult and unpleasant situation. Homosexuals in the armed forces probably need more protection than the discrimination that they endure at the moment.
When the Minister replies, I hope that he will tell us what the Government think about those issues. If the Government are not prepared at this stage to act on some of the issues that I have raised, at least we can have some idea whether sympathetic consideration is being given to those points and particularly to ethnic monitoring in the armed forces and to courts martial in camera for certain offences. I cannot believe that at this stage the Government are going to shift their position on homosexuality in view of the degree of homophobia in the House and in the country in general. That is hypocritical and unnecessary, and it has no basis in human rights. It should have no place in the Army or in the other armed forces. I hope that the Minister will consider favourably some of the points that I have put to him tonight.

Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: I was particularly anxious to be called in this debate because I had the privilege to be nominated as a member of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, but unfortunately the Gulf war intervened and I was able to be present at only the first sitting.
At the outset, I offer my congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. He compared his appointment to the Privy Council to gaining a long service and good conduct medal. By a curious quirk of discrimination, he was not eligible in his military service for that award, but I welcome him to the Privy Council for what must have been some of the most onerous months of service that any Minister of State in peacetime has had to endure in that office.
I pay tribute to the work of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill. The spirit in which it conducted its deliberations was entirely what one would expect from the all-party attitude of common sense. The hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) referred to at least two issues that were not addressed by the Armed Forces Bill and I want to elaborate on some of his arguments.
I want first to consider age limits in different circumstances. I have researched that issue and the question is more complex and interesting than might first appear. Enlistment ages for males become identical for all three services during this year. However, there is a variation in the minimum age to fulfil an operational role, ranging from 16 years six months in the Royal Navy through 16 years 8 months in the Royal Air Force to 17 years in the Army. Historically, the British Army has been an amalgam of two independent elements—the home-based forces for Europe and those engaged in protecting overseas interests. In the modern world, clearly that distinction is much less relevant.
The Army has the youngest minimum age for services overseas at 17 years three months, compared with 17 years six months for the RAF and the Royal Navy has no set rules, although there is a handful of trained personnel under the age of 17. I apologise for wearying the House with those statistics, but they are important because they were the limits applied during the Gulf campaign and the ages are related to other factors such as the school leaving age and the length of training programmes.
The matter became one of public concern when a 17-year-old Royal Fusilier was killed in action in tragic circumstances. It was pointed out that had he and the 200 or so other 17-year-olds serving in the Gulf been present in Northern Ireland, they would have been limited to duties within barracks and would not even have been out patrolling the streets—an anomaly if ever there was one.
Interestingly it seems that before 1916 there was no minimum age, although a letter of consent was expected from parents. That did not deter a number of adventure-seeking youngsters and their military employers in the past and I doubt whether I am alone in the House in claiming a grandfather and a great uncle who served throughout the Boer war as teenagers no matter what their stated ages may have been.
In the two world wars, the minimum age was generally 19 although it dropped to eighteen and a half in 1918 and 1944 respectively as the need for extra manpower became acute. Only in 1963 when national service ended did the all-regular Army adopt seventeen and a half as the minimum age.
How is the House supposed to react to paragraph 28 of the Select Committee's recommendations which says:
there should at least be a presumption that under 18 year olds should not be sent on active service overseas, unless there is some overriding requirement for their particular skills … or unless the threat to national security is such as to necessitate the conscription of minors"?
It is very difficult to endorse that statement given that people are maturing ever younger. Would it not be sensible, practical and more simple to settle on the guideline of 17 years six months for all purposes? That should clearly be a convention rather than a legality, as commanding officers must be left the discretion to take into account, for example, a particular individual's maturity and the very special qualities required for service in Northern Ireland.
It cannot be sensible for a fully trained soldier to be expected to kick his heels for up to a year and be denied the opportunity of putting his skills into practice. I met several 17-year-olds in the Gulf and will never forget a 17-year-old member of a tank crew saying that he had grown up more in the previous three months than at any time in the rest of his life. I suspect that he spoke for all of those of his age when he said how much he would have resented, as a professional soldier, being left behind. He and his comrades were subsequently tested in action. The House will agree that they passed with flying colours.
Although the Select Committee calls for consolidation of the three service Acts—this point was made by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) —the House may consider that a more worthwhile objective would be to standardise firstly recruitment ages for males and females and secondly a common age for operational service worldwide. I speak as a member of the Joint Committee on Consolidation, &c., Bills.
On the second issue, as someone who would have voted for the Sexual Offences Act 1967 in relation to homosexual acts committed in private between males over the age of 21, I endorse the specific exclusion of legalising such activity in the armed forces and the continuation of homosexuality being considered a service offence. It has always been recognised in the widest possible forum that homosexuality in the special working conditions of the services undermines command and discipline and gives rise to perceptions of favouritism. There is nothing inherently discriminatory about that, as any sexual liaisons—whether homosexual or heterosexual, as referred to by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) —are forbidden within units.
An analysis of the figures over the past four years shows that 335 men left the three services after homosexual incidents. About 85 per cent. of them—the House should consider this point—were dealt with on administrative grounds; in other words, without any formal disciplinary charges being laid. Contrary to public perception—I speak with some experience, having served as a medical officer and having been involved in managing such cases—the figures reflect the enlightened and humane attitude adopted by the authorities. Such cases are always handled sensitively, and commanding officers, physicians and padres, for instance, are routinely consulted.
Furthermore, the point raised about female homosexuality is very different. I doubt very much whether lesbianism should be tolerated in the armed forces merely because it is not a civilian offence. Anyone who reads the figures in the Select Committee's report will see that, in absolute numbers, more females than males were discharged from the Army in the past four years, which clearly represents a disproportionately high number of women in such cases.
I welcome the fact that the Committee was able to consider all aspects of service life and discipline. It is no reflection on the deliberations of members of the Committee that much of their work was done for them, inasmuch as the performance of the armed forces in the Gulf campaign, superimposed on the much-protracted and very delicate role that they had to play day to day in Northern Ireland, indicated that most things in the armed services are done exceedingly well, which makes our armed forces still the most respected throughout the world.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) excited the admiration of many of us by the promptness with which he volunteered for active service in the Gulf. The whole House was relieved and glad when he came back unscathed. I wish that I could voice the same admiration for some of his remarks. The country and the House have an obligation to protect young people in the armed forces from themselves. I had the good fortune to visit our forces in the Gulf before the conflict as part of an expedition that was mounted by the Ministry of Defence to allow hon. Members and members of the other place to visit the Gulf.
I was particularly impressed by an 18-year-old in the Royal Engineers. I thought that he was astonishingly mature. He understood, rather surprisingly, quite a lot of the international political elements involved. Indeed, he said to me, "A resolution must be put through the Security Council this week, Sir, because next week the Yemen may


have the chair." He clearly understood not only what he was doing day to day but the international political backcloth against which those matters were played out. I happened to remark upon that young man's maturity and good sense to the adjutant of the unit with whom I was having lunch. He said, "You should have seen him before we left Germany. When there was a suggestion that he might not be able to join us, there were tears streaming down his cheeks."
One is lost in admiration for such bravery and commitment. It is a measure of the loyalty that individuals feel to their own regiments or units. However, we have a duty to protect people against such enthusiasm. Any age limit will be arbitrary. A 17-year-and-364-day-old individual may be very much more mature than an 18-year-and-one-day-old individual. The same applies to fixing age limits for people to go into public houses and consume alcoholic liquor. They are essentially arbitrary and will mean that people will qualify who, on a whole series of other criteria, should not. There was considerable apprehension among the public about the notion that 17-year-olds might have to risk or even give their lives, as was plainly demonstrated in the unhappy incident to which reference has already been made.
The Government should give serious consideration to that matter because our armed forces enjoy a great deal of public support, enthusiasm and admiration as a result of their professionalism and commitment in the recent conflict and, in some cases, that public support might be prejudiced or even fractured if it was thought that unnecessary reliance was being placed on individuals of only 17 years or so. This is by no means an easy matter, but I hope that the Government will act on the Select Committee's recommendations.
The Select Committee's recommendation on homosexuality—that the legal position in terms of the committing of a criminal offence should now be the same within the services as in civilian life—is entirely sensible and the Government should pay it serious consideration. Ultimately, that recommendation should find its way into legislative change. As the climate of opinion in the country changes, it is increasingly difficult to maintain that there is something so special, so significant and so different about the armed forces to justify an individual in the services being treated differently from a civilian on a question of criminal law. If that is conceded—and the logic is overwhelming—it is only a short step to the linked conclusion that to cause people to be administratively discharged simply because they acknowledge homosexuality is no longer tenable. Some people outside the House would have wished the Committee to go further, but I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to its significant recommendation.
I might have mentioned many things in this debate, but they have been more than amply covered by the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) and I do not propose to replicate what he said. However, I would not go quite as far as the hon. Gentleman on the question of the creation of a staff association or some form of representation. It is difficult for me to conceive of the armed forces going down that difficult road.
As with the preceding debate, this debate has shown the House's continuing support for our armed services,

together with its proper concern to ensure that discipline is both adequate and relevant to the changed and changing role that they have to play. For that reason, I have no doubt that the continuation order will command the support of the House.

Mr. David Winnick: I should like to preface my remarks by paying tribute to the work of our armed forces in the Gulf. About this time last year a criminal dictator was planning the invasion of a neighbouring country. That invasion took place on 2 August. He worked on the assumption that he could get away with his criminality and aggression, but the events which occurred afterwards demonstrated that he could not do so. Whatever shortcomings have arisen from the outcome of the war, I am very pleased about what happened. We all have our own views about whether we should have completed the task, and I am aware of the feelings of the large majority of the British people. I believe that, together with our allies, we acted rightly and as we should in a totally justified conflict.
Before the House passes the continuation order, and as part of our consideration of discipline in the armed forces, it is important that we consider the way in which injured soldiers are treated. I have referred in previous debates to the case of one of my constituents, Grenadier guardsman Sean Povey, who lost both legs at the same time as two of his colleagues, John Ray and Adrian Hicks.
Of course, it is right that there should be a code of discipline in the armed forces. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine how the armed forces could operate without such a code. I assume that when people enter the armed forces they are notified as soon as possible of the appropriate codes of discipline. That is not in dispute. However, discipline should be accompanied by justice. Members of the armed forces should be able to feel that if in the course of their duties they are seriously injured they will receive compensation.
It is perfectly true that the three Grenadier guardsmen received the best medical treatment. I am sure that all that could be done was done. There was no doubt in my mind at any stage and I am sure that no hon. Member doubts that everything possible was done medically. I am also sure that the guardsmen received the sympathy they deserved. As we have already been notified, there will be a pension arrangement.
One of the injured Grenadier guardsmen has already been discharged. There are two others, one of whom is my constituent Sean Povey. The Minister has confirmed that no blame can be laid on the three guardsmen. He made that clear when I raised the matter a fortnight ago today in an Adjournment debate.
The three young guardsmen were on a training exercise in Canada. As part of the exercise, they were digging a trench and as they dug a buried shell exploded and the tragedy occurred. They lost their legs and suffered other injuries. The Minister will put me right if I have misunderstood the situation, but the Ministry of Defence position is in essence this: that the guardsmen were not responsible for what occurred, but that nor was there neglect on the part of the Ministry of Defence. Therefore, as no one was responsible, no one had liability, so there can be no compensation.
Clearly, a legal case of that kind can be built up. I accept that the Ministry of Defence has acted on legal advice, as we have been notified. But the question for the House is simple: is this justice? Is this the way in which a model employer, as the Ministry of Defence should be, should act? We are discussing discipline. As I said earlier, the code of discipline which applies to the armed forces should be accompanied by rules on other factors, including the way in which soldiers are treated. In the circumstances that I have described, I should have thought that it was right to raise the case of my constituent, and I hope that I am in order in so doing.
The Minister said that the case could be pursued through the courts. I accept that. But I ask the House to imagine the mental distress of the three people who have been crippled for life, who—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I have let the hon. Gentleman have a good run on this. I fully understand his deep anxiety on behalf of his constituent, but the matter does not arise under this order.

Mr. Winnick: As always, I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I must. My point is that we are discussing discipline which, I assume, applies to all aspects of Army life, including what happens when injuries occur. That is all part of the service men's life, and discipline as such cannot simply be seen in isolation. I shall not add much more. Perhaps with your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and hopefully keeping myself in order, I can finish what I intended to say.
The three guardsmen now have the added mental distress of not knowing what any outcome in the courts would he. If the case is to be pursued, how can anyone know what will happen in the courts? It is extremely unfair that, in addition to the serious injuries that they will suffer from for life, they do not know whether their case will succeed in court.
I hope that this is related to discipline, but is the Minister willing to place in the Library a full copy of the board of inquiry report on the tragedy as I have seen only a brief summary?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I well understand the hon. Members deep concern for his constituent, but these matters do not arise under the scope of the debate provided for by this order.

Mr. Winnick: I shall conclude my remarks; and it is only right and proper that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, should keep us in order if we stray from the subject.
I put it to the Minister that the case will continue to receive attention from hon. Members on both sides of the House. The fact that more than 200 hon. Members have signed motions on the subject and the fact that the Leader of the House said during business questions that he has discussed the case with the Secretary of State for Defence, who recognises the deep feeling shared by hon. Members, demonstrate that the matter will not go away.
As on Thursday, I plead with the Minister, because I know that he is aware of the questions put by myself and other hon. Members, to show some understanding, sympathy and compassion towards the three soldiers and to ensure that, having suffered such terrible injuries, they receive the compensation and justice to which they are entitled.

Mr. Harry Cohen: May I apologise to those on the Front Benches and to the House for missing the opening speeches of the debate? I had an unavoidable meeting elsewhere in the House and the previous debate ended a bit sooner than was expected.
I want to use the debate on the renewal of the disciplinary order to discuss the issue of homosexuality in the armed forces. I shall return to that shortly.
I also wish to raise the question of racial harassment, bullying and discrimination in the forces. Clearly, they should be disciplinary offences. I know that they are al the moment, but under current procedures the bullies are not being caught and records of such offences are not being kept, so the problem is not properly being taken into account.
This point was made by the Select Committe on Defence in a recent report. It said:
It might therefore be better to record all incidents of bullying or assault where the victim was from a racial minority; … it would show whether members of racial minorities are bullied disproportionately to their numbers and would allow comparison over time.
The Committee recommended that
MoD consider how best to identify incidents of racial harassment in the Armed Forces and keep records accordingly.
The Committee also considered racial harassment and discrimination against ethnic minorities in their employment. It said how difficult it was to
demonstrate that there is equality of opportunity".
Therefore, the Committee recommended that
MoD reconsider its opposition to the ethnic monitoring of Service personnel.
I ask that that should be done.
I shall not refer to the Gulf war—that has been done in other debates—but one aspect of it was that the head of the United States' armed forces, General Colin Powell, was a black service man. If he had been a member of the British armed forces, it would have been surprising if he had risen above the rank of sergeant. There is a strong suspicion that discrimination goes on in the armed forces and that the Ministry of Defence has been lax in not sorting out the problem long before now by, as the Select Committee said, keeping proper records. Otherwise the racists get away with it without being properly disciplined. That leads to the suspicion that the Ministry of Defence does not care when it comes to interpreting that part of the disciplinary order.
Earlier this year I asked a number of parliamentary questions about homosexuality in the armed forces. The answers I received revealed that, last year, 76 lesbian and gay members of the armed forces were dismissed as a result of their homosexuality or homosexual behaviour. That is the largest number of dismissals since 1987 and reversed the trend of the past two years when fewer numbers had been dismissed.
Of that 76, 40 were dismissed from the Army, 11 from the Navy and 25 from the Royal Air Force. Six of the 76 were dismissed with disgrace following court martial. All were sentenced to imprisonment ranging from 90 days to 18 months. I remind the House that they were sentenced for behaviour that is not criminal in civilian life. Those cases meant that, for the first time, lesbian behaviour was criminalised.

Mr. Tony Banks: It never has been a criminal act.

Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend is right, but it has been criminalised by the disciplinary orders. That is wrong.
Homosexuality among members of the armed forces should be decriminalised. The Select Committee on Defence made that recommendation when it said:
We recommend that homosexual activity of a kind that is legal in civilian law should not constitute an offence under Service law. We look to the Government to propose an appropriate amendment to the law before the end of the next Session of Parliament.
I hope that the Minister can tell us that will be the case.
The same standards and regulations should apply equally for heterosexual and homosexual members of the armed forces. That point was made by Stonewall in its submission to the Select Committee. It argued that MOD current policy is severely flawed because it exposes service personnel to the risk of blackmail and therefore endangers national security. That is the converse of the argument that MOD still uses. It is less likely that members of the armed forces would be blackmailed if homosexuality were out in the open.
Stonewall also said that the current attitude results in the loss of good service men and women, which wastes the money spent on them and disrupts military efficiency. It also said that that attitude makes it much more difficult to ensure that effective AIDS prevention education is given to gay members of the forces. I have made a similar point in previous debates on disciplinary orders.
The hon. and gallant Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes), who served in the Gulf, said that if one allowed homosexuality in the forces one would get favouritism. I do not believe that that would happen on a large scale. Any favouritism would occur in a minority of cases only and it could be dealt with by effective management systems, which should already be in existence, when promotions are made. If sexual relationships equal favouritism in the workplace, such relationships should be outlawed for both heterosexuals and homosexuals. I do not see hon. Members rushing to do that, especially those who speedily employ their wives as secretaries or in some other post that is covered by their office costs allowance. Hon. Members are probably the worst abusers when it comes to favouritism. The numbers involved would not be great and proper management systems should be able to cope properly with that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) referred to the case reported last week of the naval lieutenant and sub-lieutenant who were found in a bunk at sea. I do not want to go into the details of the case, but I want to discuss the sentence. Both admitted to charges under the Naval Discipline Act 1957 and each was fined £750 and severely reprimanded. Compare that with the treatment of all those who were thrown out of the services in disgrace and imprisoned for their homosexual behaviour. Yet this couple were fined £750 each.

Mr. Tony Banks: That may have been the penalty imposed by the courts martial, but does my hon. Friend agree that the penalty that those two young people have subsequently paid is far greater than the mere monetary fines of £750? They have become notorious in the popular press and their employment prospects are limited—indeed, severely damaged. They have paid a double penalty. Double jeopardy is not something of which any hon. Member would approve.

Mr. Cohen: I accept that both officers have been disgraced and humiliated, and so paid that extra price. That is presumably why the fine of £750 is so light—actually, it is heavy. It is light relative to the price that homosexuals pay. Homosexuals are thrown into prison and humiliated, and their prospects, too, are severely damaged. As the answers to my questions show, their penalty is far worse than that in this instance. I am not arguing for increasing sentences for this couple or other couples found in the same position. Far from it, I should like to see lighter sentences in such circumstances. Most important, the same sentences should apply to those of homosexual orientation who are found in similar circumstances.
During the passage of the Criminal Justice Bill the Home Office Minister was keen to impress on the House through press releases and in statements that there should be equality of sentences for heterosexuals and homosexuals. He said that that was Government policy. It may be Home Office policy, but clearly it has not filtered through to the Ministry of Defence. When the Minister replies, will he say whether that is the Government's policy across the board or whether the Ministry of Defence is a law unto itself and that that policy does not have to apply to it? The answer will show whether the Ministry of Defence is backward in that respect—indeed, one of the most backward Defence Ministries in the whole of Europe.
I agree with Stonewall. Homosexuality in the forces should be decriminalised. It should not be a disciplinary offence. It should not be an offence for military personnel, if it takes place off duty and outside service premises, naturally providing that it is with consent. In no circumstances should it be an offence.
It is also argued that the Ministry of Defence should set up an independent review to examine military regulations on homosexuality in the armed forces and to draw on the experience and policies of our NATO allies. Nearly half our NATO allies permit lesbian and gay membership of their armed forces. The Ministry of Defence is behind the rest of Europe, and is dragging its feet.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of discipline, does he have any thoughts about trade union representation in the armed forces? The Select Committee report covers the subject of homosexuality in the armed forces. I have raised the matter on several occasions, so it is nice to have a wider spread of support.

Mr. Cohen: I have spoken in debates on discipline orders about trade unionism in the forces. I support the right of members of the armed forces to belong to a trade union. That is their fundamental right. It is a human right—everyone should be allowed to join a trade union.
I do not wish to deal further with that point. My hon. Friend implied that he supports that view. I hope that in the future we will be able to persuade a Labour Government to allow members of the forces that right. That would counter the arguments about favouritism. I believe that the extent of favouritism is negligible, but trade union representation would counter that. I doubt that the Government will allow trade unionism in the forces, because they are totally opposed to it in civilian life.
I urge the Government to act on racial abuse and to ensure equality between members of the armed forces, whatever their sexual orientation. If they do not, I hope


that we will soon have a Labour Government who are prepared to consider these matters and make sensible changes. It would not cost money, but it would enhance basic freedoms and human rights.

Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend said that it was unlikely that the Government would show much enthusiasm for trade unionism in the armed forces, in view of the attitude that they have adopted for civvy street. Does he agree that what happened at GCHQ demonstrates that in no circumstances would the Government allow military personnel to belong to a trade union, unlike some of our allies who accept and encourage trade unionism?

Mr. Cohen: One of the abiding scandals of the Government is that they abolished trade union rights at GCHQ. I was one of the rebels; I broke with discipline on the first vote on that matter. I voted against the Government when my party thought it tactically best to abstain. I thought that that was a mistake. The Opposition Deputy Chief Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon), is listening. I assure him that I am not in the habit of breaking with discipline, but it showed my feelings about the Government's outrageous behaviour in regard to GCHQ.

Mr. Winnick: An association of the type that we have been discussing would probably be able to pursue claims made when soldiers were seriously injured. Individual soldiers, such as my constituent Sean Povey, would not find themselves without an association to speak for them. I hope that such an association will eventually be formed to assist those in the armed forces.

Mr. Cohen: ?: Indeed. A trade union is needed to represent individual soldiers who are treated particularly badly—and there are plenty of them. Those who feel that they have been discriminated against on racial grounds —they may even have been physically abused—cannot secure justice under the present system. But it is not only those who are currently serving in the armed forces who cannot obtain decent treatment from the Ministry of Defence. We need only think of the nuclear test veterans who, in the course of their duties, were exposed to nuclear fall-out. The fact that they cannot obtain proper compensation is another of the abiding scandals that should be hung around the necks of defence Ministers.

Mr. Tony Banks: Paragraph 43 of the Select Committee report clearly demonstrates the hypocrisy of the Government and, in particular, the Ministry of Defence. The Committee said that it considered the present position unsatisfactorily vague. The implication is that certain activities will not preclude someone from membership of the armed forces, and that each case will be considered in terms of the existing circumstances. We all know what that means: anyone who was ill advised enough to make an open secret of his trade union involvement—the same might apply to homosexuality—would put himself in grave danger of total discrimination.

Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend has made his point very well. I am reminded of all the struggles that trade unionists have had to undergo just to be recognised. Employers hammer such people as soon as they place themselves on the line by demanding a right of association in their own

best interests—or even for their own defence. The Ministry of Defence is now probably the worst employer when it comes to failing to recognise trade unions.
The problem has even been recognised in the United States. I watched a television programme called "The A-Team" over the weekend. "Hannibal" and his colleagues were fighting for the right of a few workers on the land to form a trade union; their employer was determined to crush them and treat them like slave labour. The United States culture now accepts that union membership is legitimate, and a proper way for workers to defend themselves.

Mr. Cryer: Would it not have been helpful for the nuclear test veterans to have been given trade union representation? Might that have not persuaded the Government to adopt a sympathetic point of view in relation to people who have given, and are giving, their lives for their country? The Government actually arranged for a Back Bencher to talk out the Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay), in a deliberate, organised effort to stop any initiative from being launched in the House to help people who are suffering a cruel fate.

Mr. Cohen: Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government's record on nuclear test veterans is squalid. I have been in the House when Tory Members have been getting a bad press, such as during the Gulf war and on other occasions, and they have demanded that the BBC and ITV show programmes that put them in a better light. I do not ask the BBC or ITV to put the Labour party in a better light but they have a duty to record properly what has happened in the House in relation to nuclear test veterans. Tory Members' efforts to block compensation for ex-service men and their families should be the subject of television and radio programmes. The Government should be brought to public account for their squalid behaviour and the way in which they have treated those who have suffered because of service to their country.
I have spoken for longer than I intended but I have made the two points that I wished to make on racial harassment and, specifically, homosexuality in the armed forces. I endorse what the Select Committee had to say and hope that there will be a change of policy on those issues in due course.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I wish to make three points on the many and varied aspects of the order, which is simple and straightforward.
First, the Ministry of Defence allowed or caused—it is not clear which—medical supplies to be wasted at the conclusion of the Gulf hostilities. A voluntary reservist, who was carrying out a public service and was not subject to the disciplinary procedures of full-time service men and women in the Gulf, gave me the information. Despite the excuse of the Ministry of Defence that the shelf life of those supplies had expired, my information was that that was not true, and that the medical supplies that were wasted and poured away by the ton could have been used on our casualties, had they occurred. Mercifully, they did not.
Although the Secretary of State wrote back to me saying that the problem was caused by the shelf life, tons of material was simply poured away by men and women in


the armed forces who did not go out to the Gulf for that purpose but for the best of motives. As the House knows, I was among those who disagreed with them and opposed the precipitate move to war in the Gulf. However, that reservist volunteered to assist and was appalled at the waste of resources, especially when everyone knew of the deprivation and desperation and the fact that thousands of people were starved, injured, wounded and suffering the outrages of war.
The medical supplies could have been used, but were deliberately destroyed in an outrageous act of wanton vandalism for which no one has yet been brought to book. Even if the shelf life of the medical supplies had expired, there was no need to dismantle tons of medical supplies, count them all and then repack them to send them back to the United Kingdom. That was simply to occupy the troops once the hostilities had ceased. Such is the mind-boggling mindlessness that occurs in the armed forces to keep men and women needlessly occupied.
Secondly, I usually raise in an annual debate the right of trade union membership. The Government are torn between whether to halt the headlong rush to federalism in the European Community, led by Jacques Delors, or to go along with it, saying that we should get the best out of it. We have heard those arguments and platitudes year after year as the Government have succumbed to every Common Market demand. The Single European Act, our capitulation to the exchange rate mechanism and other moves have occurred against the background of the Government's accepting the policies. It is against that—

Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the relevance of that to our debate?

Mr. Cryer: I was just about to embark on the very sentence. The relevance is that at least one Common Market country fully accepts trade union rights for its armed forces, and other Common Market countries have varying degrees of staff representation and trade union rights, albeit restricted ones. Some countries have trade union rights for their armed forces but withhold the right of service personnel to strike.
I am in favour of trade union representation in the armed forces for a variety of reasons, some of which have been mentioned. One reason is the disgraceful way in which nuclear test veterans have been treated by this Government. If the Government say that we must be prepared for 1992 and we must get in at the middle of "Europe"—although they really mean only a section of Europe in the middle of the economic Community—they may find themselves with things around their neck of which they are not in favour, such as a degree of trade union rights for members of the armed forces.
I support trade union rights, but I think that we can have them irrespective of our membership of the EEC—it is that for which we should be battling.

Mr. Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Government are to resist—as they obviously will—any such association in the Army, they will have to demonstrate that they will treat soldiers in a proper and fit manner? That is particularly true of soldiers who, in the course of their training, are seriously injured, such as the three Grenadier guradsmen who were well treated medically and in terms of pension rights, but have not been

paid one penny in compensation. We should compare their position to that of civilians. A worker in the channel tunnel lost both his legs in July 1989 and was awarded damages in the High Court of more than £370,000. However, my constituent, one of the three Grenadier guardsmen, will not receive—unless the Government relent—one single penny compensation.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend makes a graphic and telling point.
I shall dwell for a few minutes on nuclear test veterans. Such people willingly served their country and participated in unusual and, for this country, unique tests, without adequate protection. They received damaging doses of radiation, but the Government have simply turned their back on them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) introduced a private Member's Bill when he was lucky enough to come in the first 10 in the ballot. His Bill was framed around similar legislation in the United States, where the Government have not turned their back on American nuclear test veterans and have introduced a system of compensation. The British Government deliberately blocked my hon. Friend's Bill and connived to stop legislation for people who are fatally injured and have given their lives for this country. Those people did not make a conscious decision to do so at the time because they were not given the proper information. They were not given adequate protection and were exposed to danger.
In ordinary, civilian terms, those veterans suffered because of negligence, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said. The accident in which they were involved could reasonably have been foreseen given the state of scientific knowledge at the time. However, the information was not revealed to the troops and that act of negligence should lie at the door of the Government, who should acknowledge it.
My next point relates to discipline and the position of Army, Navy and Air Force personnel with regard to nuclear weapons. I believe that it is the perfect right of any member of the armed forces to refuse to take part in the deployment and use of nuclear weapons. They have a right of conscience so to refuse without any disciplinary consequences. We forget that nuclear weapons would involve the environmental destruction of our planet and of humanity on a scale that we have never experienced before. The Minister may say, "In certain circumstances, we must be able to use nuclear weapons. That threat is the whole purpose behind nuclear weapons. If we use them we have failed, but we must have the right to use them." I do not accept that people have that right. I deny the right of any Front Bench, on either side of the House, to invoke mass extermination as a means of conducting international affairs.

Mr. Ken Hargreaves: Rubbish.

Mr. Cryer: The hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) says that I am talking a load of rubbish, but nuclear weapons involve the threat of mass extermination. One hundred and forty one nations have said, "We will have no nuclear weapons." The Ministry knows that we are a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty, and if the Government are really serious about a peaceful future and about preserving the planet, they must obey that treaty.
The Government were keen enough to support the United Nations when that suited their book, over the Gulf


—so they should support also the non-proliferation treaty. They must honour and abide by the two review conferences, which declared that nuclear nations such as the United Kingdom must renounce the deployment and potential use of nuclear weapons.
To do so would not be to leave ourselves naked and defenceless. It would be to agree with the majority of the nations of the earth, which, thank goodness, do not follow this nation in manufacturing and deploying nuclear weapons. If they do, our planet and humanity will be doomed—and I deny that path for this nation or any other.
I welcome the non-nuclear commitment made by 141 nations. Our armed forces should have the right to say, "No, we will not participate in the extermination of mankind and womankind." The disciplinary Act should therefore reflect that serious and important qualification on every single occasion.

Dr. Reid: With the leave of the House, I will comment only briefly to give the Minister some time in which to respond.
This has been a good debate. Apart from anything else, it has gone beyond the formalities and mechanics of discipline and into a large number of areas and even into common sense. Very often, we do not see the wood for the trees. There is great merit in having, not a technical debate, but one with some common sense. I am reminded of the cavalryman who was upbraided by his senior officer because he was wearing only one spur. When asked why, he gave what I think was an excellent answer—that he reckoned that if he got one side of the horse moving, the other side would probably follow. So, although he was in breach of regulations, he probably had more common sense than some of us.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) had a good run around the houses. He made only two mistakes. The first was to remind us publicly that he had broken party discipline on a number of occasions, and the second was to admit to watching "The A-Team"—neither of which bodes very well for his future, if we get into government.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) and my hon. Friends the Members for Leyton and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) returned to the question that occupied us a great deal tonight—that of homosexuality. I will not add to my earlier remarks, except to comment on what my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West called the "dashing lieutenant" and the "randy Wren". That incident strengthens to some extent the Government's case, because they can claim with some consistency, "It is not just homosexuals we are thinking of but heterosexuals—and where there is any physical contact or favouritism, they must suffer the full weight of discipline as well."
In other ways, the Government's cause is weakened. If the same law is applied, every heterosexual who is capable of ending up in the same position as the "dashing lieutenant" and the "randy Wren"—even if not practising —would find themselves dismissed from the service, whereas mere homosexuality, let alone homosexual activity, is an offence.
The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) spoke from considerable experience. I was

interested in what he said about under-18-year-olds. The hon. Gentleman said that he was told by a 17-year-old that a few weeks in a tank in the Gulf had enabled him to grow up more than during the previous part of his life. I am 44, and if someone had stuck me in a tank in the Gulf I would probably have grown up more in those few weeks than in the previous part of my life. Such experience is no rationale for allowing under-18-year-olds to go into battle.
I agree with the hon. Member for Wimbledon that there should be consistency between the services, but there must also be consistency about the age at which people are allowed to go on active service overseas in defence of their country and the age at which they are entitled to participate in other adult activities such as voting or going into a public house. The inconsistency about that worries the public.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) showed considerable ingenuity in his speech and in two interventions by raising a case which could have been out of order in the debate. We share his deep regret at the accident to his constituent and fully understand why he is pursuing the issue of compensation.
Some hon. Members spoke about racial discrimination and ethnic minorities. No doubt they are aware of the two useful recommendations in the Select Committee report.
I thank the members of the Committee for their assistance to me and to my colleagues. I thank the Committee Clerks and the MOD witnesses who were subjected to what has been called robust questioning. They showed the sort of stoicism that is displayed by service men and women. Finally, and most importantly, we thank the service men and women on whose behalf we have been holding these discussions. I reiterate that, although we are debating breaches of discipline, penalties and punishment, they arise only in the minority of cases because the vast majority of British service men and women operate to a standard of discipline that is a credit to them all, their own self-discipline. For that we thank them.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: This has been a wide-ranging debate and many of its topics have been raised before in armed forces debates. Some of them are old chestnuts.
The hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) spoke about ethnic monitoring. We have taken the view that in-service monitoring could be divisive in a close-knit community such as the armed forces. While we continue to have reservations about the applicability of monitoring to the armed forces, the Select Committee has asked us to reconsider our opposition and we are looking at the practice of other employers.
Monitoring of entrants to the services shows a low percentage of people from ethnic minorities. We reckon that ethnic minorities form 5·7 per cent. of the 15 to 24-year-old age group from which we hope to recruit. Applicants from ethnic minorities form about 1·6 per cent. and entrants are about 1·1 per cent. By any national comparison the percentages are far too low and we are not happy about that.
I do not know what can be achieved by some sort of monitoring of people who are in the services. Should it be done voluntarily, in which case members of the ethnic minorities in the armed forces might decide not to fill in the form? I do not think that we should force them to do so. Alternatively, perhaps senior officers could submit a return


showing the ethnic origins of people in their units. It is not easy to see how that could be done, and I suspect that if it were it would show the same percentages as those that can be produced from an examination of entry forms.
It is much more important to address the problem by improving recruitment in areas where there are concentrations of ethnic minorities. That can be done by advertising and by other means to increase the numbers of people who are joining the services.

Mr. Tony Banks: There is no need for the Minister to reinvent the wheel. If he wants to know how to increase the number of ethnic minority recruits and, more important, how to retain them, he should talk to the Metropolitan police, who have experienced these problems. It is not good enough for him to say that he is dissatisfied with the low level of recruitment from the ethnic minorities. Has he ever asked the reason why? It is that they are put off by the stories and the knowledge of the racial harassment and discrimination in the armed services. That is not my prejudice but the experience of black people.

Mr. Hamilton: That is the hon. Gentleman's story. I do not know, and we make inquiries about, why such people do not join more readily. The answer is not as simple as he suggests.
Several hon. Members have referred to the deaths of two young service men in the Gulf conflict—a matter of great regret and sadness. I assure the House that we shall consider carefully whether service men under 18 should be sent on active service overseas, and we shall report our conclusions to the House in due course.
We have always taken as our criterion whether service men are well trained. If we feel that they have reached their peak of efficiency in doing their job, we feel that we can send them off and ask them to fight. I regret that the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) is no longer present. He made the point that any age limit is arbitrary. As to maturity, some of us take longer to come to maturity than others. It is not necessarily age related. We have also to take into account that if younger trained service men are removed from a unit, the ability of that unit to fight is reduced. However, we shall look at the matter to see whether we can do anything.
The issue of homosexuality was raised, as it invariably is, by Labour Members. Only they could seriously suggest that homosexuals should be allowed to serve in the armed forces. It is extraordinary that they believe that that would work. It is a long-standing policy that both homosexual activity and orientation are incompatible with service in the armed forces. The main reason centres on the need to maintain discipline and morale. The services are hierarchical, close knit, overwhelmingly single sex and young communities. Units can work to full effectiveness only on the basis of mutual trust and the expectation of equal treatment among each rank. The formation within these units of sexually motivated relationships are potentially very disruptive of discipline and morale, particularly when they cross rank boundaries.
It is worth making the point that very young service men must have the permission of their parents to join. I believe that such permission would be less forthcoming if parents thought that there was any risk that senior ranks of homosexual non-commissioned officers, and indeed

commissioned officers, might use the advantage of their rank to coerce young service men into activities in which they would not otherwise want to take part.
Our practice is that the majority of service personnel who are required to leave the services on grounds of their homosexuality are administratively discharged—a point brought up by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes). Therefore, there is no question of such people having a criminal record on account of their homosexuality. Prosecution under the service discipline Acts occurs only in a minority of cases and will always be considered where there are grounds for believing that a civil offence has been committed. On conviction, dismissal from the service will almost certainly follow.
We will carefully consider the Select Committee's recommendation that homosexuality, which is no longer an offence under civil law, should not constitute an offence under service law. I should make it clear that there is no specific service offence of committing a homosexual act or of being a homosexual, but a homosexual act that would not be an offence under civil law may be used as the basis for a prosecution for certain offences unique to service law, including conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline, and disgraceful conduct of an indecent kind. I can give no undertaking on timing; it is a complex area of law. The recommendation would put homosexuals in a more advantageous position than heterosexuals and lesbians. I do not want to make changes that affect the public perception of our position on homosexuality on which there must be no doubt.
The hon. Member for Motherwell, North also raised the question of the composition of courts martial. He suggested that it might be better if courts martial contained one non-commissioned officer or similar person because he thought that in some way better justice would be served. Courts martial and civil courts are not directly comparable. Unlike civil courts operating with juries, courts martial are essentially disciplinary courts which consider matters of fact and of law, and which decide both finding and sentence. Although only about 20 per cent. of the members of courts martial rise from the ranks, they know their men far better than their equivalents did 30 or 40 years ago. The conditions in which they operate, such as in Northern Ireland or on board ship, ensure that junior officers especially are as in touch with their men as are senior non-commissioned officers.
No call for the idea has come from members of the forces. The most recent major study in the forces, which was carried out in 1985, concluded that it would not improve the quality of justice and would not give the appearance of its being improved. A court martial may consider service offences such as flying offences in which the qualifications and service knowledge of the court would be essential in deciding the facts of a particular case. It is right that the judicial role should remain with those who are ultimately responsible for discipline. I have no anecdotal evidence, but I know that in the United States other ranks have the right to have one of their own on a court martial. Only 1 per cent. of them exercise that right.
The Labour party, as one has come to expect in these debates, raised the question of trade unions. We take the view that the active involvement of trade unions or professional associations could run counter to the principle that service personnel should not engage in any activity that might conflict with their service duties. In the


past, we have resisted a precise definition of an unacceptable trade union activity, mainly because the criteria drawn up would inevitably be more restrictive than those presently allowed. However, we will study carefully the recommendation of the Select Committee that appropriate regulations are codified. We will consider whether we can provide more detailed guidelines.
We believe that we already have an efficient and well understood communications system with all members of the armed forces through the chain of command. That is further supplemented by regular attitude surveys with those remaining in and those leaving the services. In addition, teams from each service visit a number of units each year to answer questions and to listen to the concerns of regular service men at first hand. The question of greater representation by trade union or staff federation is never a significant factor in the investigations. I therefore endorse the Select Committee's view that no other form of representation is required.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-East—

Mr. Tony Banks: North-West.

Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman raised the question of racial harassment. The Select Committee accepts that compiling statistics on bullying would be subject to difficulties. However, we will give careful thought to the recommendation that we consider how best to identify and record incidents of racial harassment in the armed forces. The hon. Member for Newham, North-East—

Mr. Banks: rose—

Mr. Hamilton: I am not giving way.

Mr. Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister is foolish not to give way. I realise that in his speech which someone has written for him it probably says that I am the hon. Member for Newham, North-East, but I happen to be the hon. Member for Newham, North-West. That is all I wanted to say. Get on with your speech, Sir.

Mr. Speaker: The point of order was for me.

Mr. Banks: Of course, Mr. Speaker. I did not want the Minister to take time out to get a drink because he did not deserve such a break.

Mr. Hamilton: I apologise to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). I am grateful to him for putting me right. I am also terribly grateful to him for asking me to the Theatre Royal, Stratford to see the play about the maltreatment of blacks in the armed forces.
The hon. Gentleman raised a difficult problem. We hear of people who have left the armed forces and say that they were discriminated against during their time in the forces. It would be much more useful if they complained at the time. If they did, such allegations would be investigated by senior officers, and there is no doubt that any form of bullying or racial discrimination or harassment would be seriously investigated and dealt with. We cannot do anything if black service men leave the services and then say that they were discriminated against, because at that stage it is impossible to obtain evidence of what has gone on. If people want to help, I can only encourage them to bring the matter to our attention earlier. If there isevidence—and I do not know whether there is

evidence—and I do not know whether there is—of racial harassment in the services, we can deal with it only if complaints are raised at the time, rather than later.
I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the publicity involving the Royal Naval officer and the Wren in a recent case which came before a court martial. Having said that, I do not think that there is any reason to change the no-touching rule. It is absolutely right to have such restrictions on board ship. If we do not, we shall have serious difficulties.
The hon. Gentleman asked about holding the case in camera. Either side can apply for a case to be held in camera on the grounds that it is necessary or expedient in the interests of the administration of justice to do so. I am afraid that I cannot comment further on that case.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) referred to a matter that he has been raising for some time —the case of the three guardsmen who had their legs blown off and were badly injured while digging a trench in Canada. The hon. Gentleman goes on endlessly about the fact that they receive no compensation but ignores the fact that they are being quite well looked after under the arrangements that we have—the pension from the armed services and the DSS war pension. Former Guardsman Hicks also receives the mobility supplement and clothing allowance, although that does not apply to the other two guardsmen as they are still in the Army and will not be discharged until as much as possible has been done for them in medical terms.
I think that I am right in saying—within a few pounds —that the total amount that Guardsman Hicks receives is £8,984 a year. That sum is tax free and index linked, and the equivalent lump sum would be about £200,000. That is a significant amount.
The guardsmen have made very good recoveries indeed —especially Hicks, who is looking for a job at the moment. I think that he has applied for unemployment benefit in the mean time and I sincerely hope that he will get a job. He is not debarred from sedentary jobs such as those that many of us have and he could receive serious earnings on top of that money—already the best part of £9,000 a year, tax free and index linked, for the rest of his life.

Mr. Winnick: I am not the only hon. Member who has raised the case. The Minister will know that a number of his hon. Friends are doing so—rightly in my view. Is the Minister aware that the three guardsmen themselves are not satisfied? It is all very well for him to mention the sum in question, which is not in dispute, but the guardsmen do not feel that justice has been done. If they did, they would not have contacted hon. Members. Moreover, they would not be in contact with their solicitors and would not now be considering taking the case to court. The three young men—Sean Povey is only 21—have lost their legs and suffered other injuries and they feel that they are entitled to compensation in addition to the pension. Like other hon. Members—more than 200 on both sides of the House have signed the motion—I believe that they are absolutely right to press their case.

Mr. Hamilton: It would be a funny old world if we paid compensation—large lump sums of taxpayers' money—to people just because they were not satisfied with the pension arrangements made for them.

Mr. Winnick: Having lost both legs?

Mr. Hamilton: We have to assess whether £9,000 a year, tax free and index linked, is a reasonable settlement—it will never be that generous—in the light of the injuries that those young men suffered, and taking into account the fact that they are more than able to get a job giving them earnings in addition to that money.
The hon. Member for Motherwell, North had the cheek to suggest that the Ministry of Defence was a complete shambles and that we might end up with a smaller budget and no defence strategy whatever. Coming from the Labour party, that is pretty cool. If anyone can tell me what Labour party policy is on anything or how much Labour's defence budget would be if there were ever a Labour Government, that person is much cleverer than I. Labour Members have given no information about their defence policy. They are lying very low. Before they start hurling stuff at us, they should reveal what Labour's policy is likely to be.

Question put and agreed.

Resolved,
That the draft Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 7th June, be approved.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

ROADS AND BRIDGES (SCOTLAND)

That the Erskine Bridge Tolls Extension Order 1991, dated 12th May 1991, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th May, be approved.—[Mr. David Davis.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

COMPANIES

That the Companies (Fees) Regulations 1991 (S.I., 1991 No. 1206), dated 20th May 1991, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th May, be approved.— [Mr. David Davis.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

AGRICULTURE

That the Home-Grown Cereals Authority Levy (Variation) Scheme (Approval) Order 1991, dated 2nd May 1991, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th May, be approved.—[Mr. David Davis.]

Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (Standing Committees on European Community documents.).

DATA PROTECTION

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8460/90 on protection of personal data; and considers that any Community legislation should so far as possible be based on the approach set out in the 1981 Council of Europe Convention on data protection.—[Mr. David Davis.]

Question agreed to.

Empty Properties (Liverpool)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. David Davis.]

Mr. David Alton: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of empty property in Liverpool. At the outset, I want to thank the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, who will reply to the debate, and the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) who introduced a Bill about empty houses last year. He hopes to catch your eye later, Mr. Speaker, to raise some points in addition to those that I will make. I am also grateful for the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) who has raised the issue of empty properties in Merseyside and the Liverpool area on a previous occasion.
I want to begin by putting the debate in context. At present, throughout the United Kingdom there are about 700,000 empty properties, of which 586,000 are in the private sector, 92,000 are owned by local authorities, 19,000 are owned by housing associations and 30,000 by the Government. In the north-west region, 74,657 private properties are standing empty; 24,563 are owned by local authorities, 2,560 are owned by housing associations and 2,571 by the Government.
I want now to contrast the position in Liverpool with that in other cities. In Newcastle, there are 6,790 empty properties. In Manchester, there are 10,760. In Birmingham there are 10,900 and in Sheffield 8,810. Regrettably, this is another of those league tables of which Liverpool is top. According to Mr. Peter Bounds, who is the chief executive of Liverpool city council, at the moment there are 5,733 local authority properties standing vacant in the city of Liverpool. The council admits that some of those have been empty for as long as four years.
In addition, 7,000 properties in the private sector are vacant, and 931 are owned by housing associations. Liverpool city council confirms that if tenants had been living in properties which it owns and which are vacant at present, about £4·5 million of rent would have been collected in the past 12 months alone. That might have helped to offset the £70·99 double poll tax that Liverpool community charge payers are now being forced to pay in lieu of uncollected poll tax. It might also have been a modest contribution to the staggering £800 million city debt which currently burdens the ratepayers of Liverpool.
Massive interest charges, which must be met by Liverpool people, may benefit Swiss and Japanese moneylenders, but they cripple the local administration so much that it has no resources to run local services or to maintain, manage or let properties efficiently. The result is that properties stand empty. They are unrepaired and increasingly vandalised. That, in turn, makes them even more difficult to let.
Trapped in that vicious circle, what has Liverpool done? It has resorted to the unimaginative and costly remedy of demolition. In the past 10 years, Liverpool's Labour council has demolished 12,000 properties. The outstanding debt on the properties that have been demolished is still £23·9 million. That is money still to be paid on properties that have now been pulled down. In the past five years, 6,878 properties have been pulled down in Liverpool—properties that were standing empty. The outstanding debt on those properties is £13·5 million.
Last year alone, 694 properties were demolished at a cost of £376,000 and with outstanding debts of £1·25 million left as a continuing burden to the community charge payers of Liverpool. The council intended to demolish a further 3,500 properties with outstanding debt charges of £8 million. Although the number of properties to be demolished is likely to be reduced to about 1,000, it is an unimaginative, costly and scorched earth approach to the problem.
When I was first elected to Liverpool city council in 1972, the council decided to build an estate called Netherly. Within 12 years, that estate has been so badly neglected, so badly maintained and managed that, with 48 years of debt charges still outstanding, the council had to pull down many of those dwellings—dwellings that had been standing vacant for the previous four or five years.
The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), who is the Minister in the Department of the Environment, knows of a case in my constituency because I have raised it specifically with him. In the St. Andrew's Gardens complex, which is also known as the Bullring, several hundred properties are currently vacant. From the discussion that I held last Friday with housing corporation officials in Liverpool, I know that there is a welcome new Housing Corporation initiative aimed at the Bullring which will involve volume builders, housing associations and the local authority. I hope that Ministers will give it a positive response. Otherwise, the properties will continue to stand empty and blight this area, which is in the very heart of the city, for many more years to come.
When Archihishop Derek Worlock recently carried out a pastoral visitation to that community, he expressed grave disquiet at the appalling conditions in which he found his cathedral parish now living. He has registered his fervent wish that the remaining community be kept together and a housing initiative be taken as a matter of urgency.
One example from that Bullring area, which I have already drawn to the attention of Ministers, is a graphic illustration of the scale and nature of the problem. A gentleman called Michael Stetch lives in a property in Gill street. It is in a corporation complex which, within the past 10 years, has had more than £30,000 spent on improving and modernising it. Within five years, Mr. Stetch decided to take up the right to buy under the Government's right-to-buy legislation and purchased one of the flats. Within another two years the city council decided not to fill any vacancies that occurred in blocks because it decided to demolish them. These are properties on which £300,000 of public money has been spent. The property that is owned by Mr. Stetch, which was bought by that tenant under the right to buy, has now been put in a demolition programme. All the other properties in his block are not being relet and have been left vacant. Now his home is to be compulsorily acquired by the Department of the Environment and demolished. That is the economics of the mad house. I hope that the Government will look at that staggering waste of public money.
There is waste in the private sector, too. The Government must treat the issue comprehensively. In Liverpool, in addition to the 5,500 empty council properties, there are 7,000 empty properties in the private sector. Recently, I wrote to a company in Birmingham, J. Saville Gordon Group plc, concerning a property at 122 Salisbury road, Wavertree. The property had been empty for several years. Its owners, a very large property agency, admitted to me in its reply that it had forgotten that it

owned the property, and said that it was grateful to me for drawing the matter to its attention. In fairness, it then said that it would put in hand the rehabilitation and renovation of the property. Although I am grateful for the agency's candour, one must still be critical of the fact that a large property company could so easily forget that it even owns such a property as part of its portfolio. Criticism also stems from the detrimental effects of its empty dwelling on the nearby community.
Every empty property represents a curse on the community. Empty homes become derelict homes and tinder boxes that are easily and regularly set on fire, or they become a target for vandals. Empty homes are a breeding ground for vermin and a public health risk. Empty houses are used as rubbish tips, or as a convenient dumping ground. In a city where some districts have now not seen a refuse collector or a bin man for 13 weeks that means that they are often piled high with rubbish. Children then use them as local playgrounds. They risk contracting deadly diseases such as HIV or hepatitis B from the syringes that have been dumped in the properties. Empty houses are a catalyst for creeping dereliction and decay, which gradually erodes an entire terrace or neighbourhood.
I should like to quote from letters that I have received from constituents who can express far more eloquently than I can the problem of having to live next door to or in the same street as an empty property. Only this week, I received a letter from Mr. B. McKeown of 33 Cromer road, Liverpool 17. The Aigburth area, where Mr. McKeown lives, is a pleasant suburb. Despite all the caricatures that have appeared in the national media in the past few days, many parts of Liverpool are pleasant areas in which to live. However, despite the fact that Aigburth is a desirable residential district, it none the less contains vacant dwellings that cause the sort of problems that are described in Mr. McKeown's letter, which states:
The nature of my concern is that this empty house has become a target for local vandals and its condition is deteriorating from day to day. Already there are virtually no window panes intact at the back of the house and the front windows are beginning to be 'put in'. There is open access to the yard of the house and the back door appears to be open … something needs to be done to get the property properly secure in order to prevent any of the potential hazards for local residents that neglected derelict buildings entail. I refer to possible drug and solvent abuse on the premises, physical danger to curious children (from broken glass and fittings etc.), potential violence and sex crimes against children and adults, 'bolt-holes' for burglars, increased incidence of house break-ins for the immediate neighbours, fire hazards, damage to neighbouring property from vandals. The list is endless.
I could replicate that letter with many more examples. My secretary, Mrs. Barbara Lewis, has taken nine letters from our files, dated 23 April, to show the range of letters that I sent on just one day to different departments in Liverpool about properties such as 70 Gladstone road, another on the corner of Cecily street and Wavertree road, and others in Royston street, and in Edge lane in Edgehill. There are many such properties in different parts of my constituency and throughout Liverpool as a whole. They are a bane to the people who have to live alongside them.
I have been given details of a particularly bad example by Councillor Mrs. Cathy Hancox who has complained about a property at 90 Ashbourne road in Aigburth, Liverpool 17. That case was so bad that it was considered by Liverpool city council, which resolved that the property was



"(a) an environmental eyesore and is detrimental to the immediate residents.
(b) the site is used for drug activities and anti-social behaviour; and
(c) as a result of (a) and (b) residents in the immediate area are living under a great deal of stress and emotional trauma."

Inevitably, the council found that the legislation was inadequate to force that property to be put back into proper use. Again, I could replicate that experience with examples from many parts of my constituency. They provide just a glimpse of what it is like for those who are unlucky enough to live next to such properties.
There is one reason above all others why this issue should be tackled head on. The fact that 700,000 properties stand vacant in our country today is an affront to the 150,000 homeless people in Liverpool and the 2 million families that Shelter says needs homes.
On 27 December 1990, The Guardian reported that the Minister had come to the same conclusion. The report stated:
The Government is believed to be considering legislation to make up to 100,000 empty private homes available to the homeless.
A Department of Environment analysis is believed to have concluded that nearly one in six of the 600,000 empty properties in the private sector are empty for no justifiable reason.
That is a conclusion with which I concur. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us tonight how that initiative is doing.
During the 1970s I served as the housing chairman of the Liverpool city council and as chairman of its special working party dealing with homelessness. For the past decade I have also been a trustee of Crisis, formerly Crisis at Christmas, which is the biggest charity in Britain dealing with homelessness. The Minister will know that this year we have allocated £1·96 million to 250 projects. Although Crisis welcomes the Department's £96 million London street homeless initiative, we expressed disappointment that only £3 million has so far been specifically targeted for other cities such as Liverpool and Manchester.
Stuart Craig, the director of Crisis, said:
Our grants announced today will do much to help those who are living the nightmare of homelessness. But to ensure that people in the future do not have to suffer the same fate the Government must make the provision of cheap and affordable housing its number one priority.
Large numbers of Liverpool people drift to London and become homeless. Centrepoint in Soho says that over 10 per cent. of the homeless young people whom it saw last year came from the north-west of England, primarily from Liverpool and Manchester. It says:
For too many of the young people we see, they have been homeless in their own area before moving to London and they have no option but to move to London where they presume they will have a greater opportunity of finding employment and accommodation. All too often, of course, they end up either on the streets or in emergency shelters.
Centrepoint would also be keen that homeless people from Liverpool wishing to return home could have access to housing in their 'home area'.
What can the Government do? Clearly, they can match the problem of homelessness and the drift to London by trying to put back into use the great resource of empty homes in areas such as Liverpool. They could draw up a register such as that suggested by Shelter, so that we can identify the empty properties in the country. They could

take punitive action against those, whether in the public or the private sector, who deliberately and wantonly leave properties empty and allow them to become derelict eyesores and breeding grounds for vermin. Such houses are often festering, dangerous, broken-backed properties. Instead, they could provide somewhere for people to live. These are simply and clearly home truths, with which I hope that the Minister will agree. I hope that he will address some of the points that I have raised tonight.

Mr. Ken Hargreaves: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) for allowing me to take part in this short debate. The position in Liverpool that he described is a scandal. The Labour council is a disaster for all the people of Liverpool. But it is especially disastrous for the poorest members of the Liverpool community, many of whom are trying to bring up children in bed-and-breakfast accommodation where family life is impossible. That that can be allowed to happen is bad enough, but that it can be allowed to happen when there are more than 5,000 empty council properties in Liverpool is disgraceful. It shows that the Labour council in Liverpool does not care or is completely incompetent—or both. Whichever it is, the position is a disaster for many Liverpool families who deserve better.
Unfortunately, under a Labour-controlled council, the position in Liverpool will not improve unless my hon. Friend the Minister intervenes. Therefore, I ask him to examine closely the Empty Property and Community Aid Bill, which I introduced in 1988, with the support of the hon. Member for Mossley Hill. The Bill would help Liverpool enormously because it would ensure the maximum possible use of houses left empty for many years.
The mere existence of large numbers of empty properties is evidence that new initiatives are needed. The Bill would require local authorities to register all empty residential property and provide the Secretary of State for the Environment with an annual statement of their strategy for bringing back into use any empty properties that they own. Councils would be obliged to allow community groups such as housing associations and other voluntary bodies to use empty properties in their possession for housing homeless families unless the council can give a good reason why the properties should remain empty.
Clearly, there can be no reason why 5,000 properties in Liverpool should be empty. If the Empty Property and Community Aid Bill were law now, thousands of Liverpool families would have had the opportunity to be rehoused, an opportunity now denied them by the incompetence of the Labour-controlled council.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tim Yeo): I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) on obtaining this opportune debate at a time when, once again, Liverpool is the focus of national attention. The voters of Walton are now confronted with the real face —or should I say faces—of the Labour party. The Labour party has sought to obscure one of those faces for the past two years. The hon. Gentleman rightly condemned the Labour party's past policy in the city.
I share the aims of the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves).
The Government entirely reject the figures from Shelter which the hon. Member for Mossley Hill quoted. They are a gross exaggeration and are almost entirely without foundation in terms of the relationship that they bear to the true numbers of homeless.
I agree that we must make much better use of the existing housing stock. The existence of so many vacant properties, particularly those in the hands of local authorities, is nothing short of a national scandal. It must be addressed as a matter of urgency. As the hon. Member for Mossley Hill said, at the last count there were 100,000 empty council houses in the country of which more than 5,000 were in Liverpool. That is deeply disturbing. I t is all the more unsatisfactory against the background of large numbers of empty properties in the private sector to which the hon. Member for Mossley Hill also referred.
That situation has been brought about largely by decades of hostility to the private landlord. Alas, that hostility, even though it is expressed by the Opposition alone, is enough to deter the majority of private landlords from risking the future security of their property by letting it in case of retrospective changes in legislation.
Almost 9 per cent. of the dwellings in the public sector in Liverpool are now vacant. Almost 6,000 properties are now lying vacant and are deteriorating. The reckless policies and the gross mismanagement of the Militant administration in the mid-1980s must take the main share of the blame for that state of affairs. That state of affairs has even been acknowledged by the former leader of the Liverpool Labour group, Mr. Coombes. After his resignation, he described the Labour-run council as
the worst landlord in Liverpool, probably in the country".
He went on to acknowledge that
The council's problems are not down to resources.
Even when the Liberals were in control of Liverpool council in the early 1980s they failed to tackle the difficulties that the city then faced. The hon. Member for Mossley Hill has already admitted that he was chairman of the housing committee for part of that time.

Mr. Alton: I was chairman in the 1970s.

Mr. Yeo: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon.
The policy of total municipalisation as the answer to long-standing problems of disrepair has had a further damaging impact on the state of affairs in Liverpool.
In the 1980s, the Government urged the council to follow a pluralist approach of repairing and renewing existing stock, and, where necessary, of providing new housing for rent and sale. The city council not only disregarded that advice at the time, but set out on a deliberate policy of municipal new build. By doing so it spent disastrously beyond its means and created enduring difficulties for its successors and the people of Liverpool.
If any evidence is needed of the utter folly of expecting a monopoly local authority landlord to offer an effective response to the housing needs of a great city, one need look no further than Liverpool. The council pursued that policy through the late 1980s, and that exacerbated the difficulties already faced by the city and created a financial albatross that now inhibits the efforts of the city council. It will continue to do so for some time.
There is no sign whatever that either of the Labour candidates in the Walton by-election have learnt that lesson. The real Labour candidate, as so-called, Lesley

Mahmood, served as an official Labour councillor. How can we expect Labour candidates to learn that lesson when the Labour party leadership is still wedded to the idea of meeting every housing need by pouring more and more money into local authority hands regardless of how it is spent? When it comes to housing policy, the Labour party is still living in the 1950s.
The Government consider that in renewing the fabric of social housing we must provide choice and diversity of tenure. Tenants must have a measure of control over their environment and living conditions. Problems can often be solved simply through better management, especially where the greater involvement of tenants can be achieved. It is no coincidence that there are no estate management boards in Liverpool, despite its appalling problems.
The strategy developed by Labour for running Liverpool's housing in the mid-1908s involved channelling huge resources into a limited number of areas and leaving the remainder of the stock to deteriorate. Liverpool's record of managing and maintaining the great majority of its stock in recent years has been abysmal. Its rent policy has been equally disastrous, with no increases for almost eight years up to last year. The result has exacerbated the maintenance problems. Despite those low rents, it has failed to collect no less than £23 million. Furthermore, the council has deliberately chosen to work against the grain of Government policy, ignoring the role of housing associations as the main providers of new social housing and rejecting the enormous potential offered by the private sector.
The Government have responded in a number of ways. We are allocating large sums under our estate action programme to enable properties to be refurbished and reoccupied. Since the more moderate Labour administration of Councillor Harry Rimmer came to power, a large number of properties on five estates are being dealt with through the allocation of more than £35 million from the estate action programme.
As with other estate action programmes, that involves the residents of the estates in close discussions with the city council over the way in which their homes can be repaired. I am pleased to say that residents are responding enthusiastically. Even the city council is now keen to press ahead, although its financial difficulties, the result of putting into practice socialist dogma in the mid-1980s, is limiting its response.
The leader of the council, Harry Rimmer, has taken an initiative in conjunction with the chairman of the Housing Corporation, Sir Christopher Benson. The so-called Rimmer-Benson initiative proposed collaboration with several volume private house builders who would refurbish or convert blocks of vacant housing. The improved houses or flats would then either be sold or transferred to housing association ownership for rent, or rented within the private sector. There may also be opportunities for the involvement of housing co-operatives. That would address directly the problem of the many vacant properties in Liverpool.
Officials from my Department are working with Liverpool city council and the Housing Corporation to prepare a detailed assessment of the possibilities. I expect a report to go to my hon. Friend the Minister of State soon.
A further initiative offers prospects of improved housing. Hon. Members will know of the Government's policy on housing action trusts. It is based on the


successful renovation of the Stockbridge village in Merseyside. The recent agreement by residents to a HAT in Hull has stimulated Liverpool to consider whether it, too, could benefit from a similar venture, taking advantage of Government finanical resources and involving the support of the residents, other housing agencies and the private sector. The city is examining the possibilities in detail and we expect to hear from it soon. I hope that it takes advantage of this opportunity.
Merseyside has a strong tradition of activity and innovation in provision by housing associations, for both new build and refurbished properties. There are many excellent housing association schemes, some on former local authority sites and others on sites provided by the private sector. The Government have maintained a high level of funding to the housing associations, both to the main approved development programme and through the Merseyside special allocation instituted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State some years ago.
As for private sector housing, the proportion of vacant dwellings in Liverpool is about 6 per cent. above the national average. I am glad to say that builders and developers have not deserted Merseyside during the economic downturn. Indeed, house prices have remained firm during the past couple of years. The range of housing available is impressive and includes a good proportion of cheap starter homes.
In addition, I am glad to say that some builders have taken a strong interest in the refurbishment of derelict non-residential buildings close to the centre of the city. I commend the house builders and developers who are prepared to take the risks attached to such ventures. The signs are that they are justified and that there is demand for refurbished properties close to the city centre.
I hope that when the city council comes to put in its bid to my right hon. Friend to be a pacemaker authority under the city challenge it will consider the prospects for refurbishment and redevelopment of existing semi-derelict

or derelict properties in the pacemaker area. I am sure that there are prospects of residential units for social housing, extra accommodation for students and better quality housing for city centre workers. Such a step would help to bring back the population to the centre—a, step which we all hope will be taken.
I am more confident about the prospects for dealing with the problems of vacant dwellings in Liverpool now that the controlling Labour group has seen the wisdom of the Government's approach to these matters and is showing signs of being prepared to work with, not against, the grain of our policies. I look forward over the next two or three years to a partnership between central and local government, the private sector and the housing association movement, together with the community, to sort out this severe problem of empty properties in Liverpool.
I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman refer to his proposals for tackling empty properties and his suggestion that private landlords might be dealt with in what sounded like a somewhat punitive way in extreme cases. I am not attracted by that concept. There are already enough disincentives for the prospective private landlord without threatening further action against him. What we need is more carrot and less stick. That is a better way to get private homes for rent and why the Government have recently launched another initiative to promote the involvement of housing associations in the management of private property, with the aim of encouraging landlords to' consider letting to homeless families and individuals.
I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue at an opportune time. I am not pessimistic about the future. I have explained that there are several initiatives which will help to improve housing in Liverpool and to decrease the number of vacant dwellings. All these initiatives have an excellent chance of success, provided that the city council does not return to its bad old ways.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.